Name bad things about Xenogears.
John Cable
(one that isn't my own).
And religious symbolism is a given, so that's not necessary.
kwarlord2004
"John Cable" <jcc...@comcast.hurfnet> wrote in message
news:tcoivugbe2ernm4dd...@4ax.com...
> I'm making a list. Possibly going to write a review for a website
> (one that isn't my own).
>
> And religious symbolism is a given, so that's not necessary.
honestly?....I'd have to say the long save breaks on disk 2...and I'm
talking about one hour long save breaks!
--
Founder of the Church of the Divine Yuffie
giver of RPG Master points
giver of 20 Dragonslayer points (for owning 20+ RPGs)
titles:
Sorceror of Death's Construction
Defiler of Final Fantasy 8
"I am too a Cowboy! Yippie wippie." The Kaiser, Simpson's Treehouse of
Horror 13
my website:
http://kwarlord.tripod.com/index.html
your PSX saves wanted: (I ONLY deal in saves...)
http://kwarlord.tripod.com/DexDrive.html
"I dreamnt that I was a moron"- Squall (who is a moron), FF8
...And now, a message from the infinitly wise Ralph Wiggums:
"I found a moonrock in my nose!"
Balthasar
"John Cable" <jcc...@comcast.hurfnet> wrote in message
news:tcoivugbe2ernm4dd...@4ax.com...
> (one that isn't my own).
>
> And religious symbolism is a given, so that's not necessary.
Religious symbolism is a bad thing?
Balthasar
--
Life contains but two tragedies. One is not to get your heart's desire; the
other is to get it.
-Socrates
"To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme
excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting."
-Sun Tzu, The Art of War
Mike Robinson
T...h.....e...... r.....e....a.........l....l...y....
s.......l.......o........w...... t.......e.....x.....t.
(fixable with a gameshark code)
Dan Posluns
John Cable <jcc...@comcast.hurfnet> wrote:
Someone else has already mentioned the text speed, so I'll add to that:
- Incredibly dry translation
- Instead of foreshadowing the game uses a technique of interspersing
completely confusing scenes that don't make sense even if you know the
story
- Textures and sprites look horribly pixellated 90% of the time
- Awful load times (not unique to Xenogears, but even going to the menu
takes too long)
- I've played through that game three or four times and I still don't
get many aspects of the story. It's made WAY more confusing than it
needs to be.
- Some very poor directorial choices for the scenes... like the way it
will just cut from one camera angle to another without any transition
effect, or the way that some really cool music only plays at really
bizarre times (I'm thinking of the music that plays when you find Johnny
with his store in the underground city, which also plays just before you
fight the Elementals in their Megazord, for some reason).
- 75% of Disc 2 consists of sitting there hitting "X" while the story is
told to you... often just page after page of text.
FTR, I don't actually hate Xenogears... I just have a lot of problems
with it. Overall I think it's a cool game with a very cool story (even
if I can't understand parts of it, or it was revealed to me in a very
confusing way). And the religious symbolism doesn't bug me: it's
justified in the story if the spaceship carrying Deus came from Earth,
presumably with a record of Christianity or something similar to it in
its computer.
Dan.
--
Dan Posluns - remove "nospam" from my e-mail address to reply
http://msw.mcmaster.ca/~poslundc
ICQ: 35758902
John Cable
<d...@removeallexceptdanposluns.com> wrote:
>FTR, I don't actually hate Xenogears... I just have a lot of problems
>with it. Overall I think it's a cool game with a very cool story (even
>if I can't understand parts of it, or it was revealed to me in a very
>confusing way). And the religious symbolism doesn't bug me: it's
>justified in the story if the spaceship carrying Deus came from Earth,
>presumably with a record of Christianity or something similar to it in
>its computer.
But it's not Earth. It is a land far gayer.
Nick Zitzmann
John Cable <jcc...@comcast.hurfnet> wrote:
Two words: Disc 2.
It's very obvious disc 2 was rushed, with its one hour long cutscenes
and non-interactivity. I once read an interview with one of the
character designers, and she basically said Square forced them to rush
the disc. That was why so much of the disc was non-interactive, and they
also removed two planned "anima relic" dungeons.
It seems that they were also trying to implement a Grandia-style face
system, with the character's face (with the appropriate emotion) was
displayed in chat screens, but they only got around to partially
implementing it for Fei and Elly only.
I liked the storyline and the religious symbolism, but the lack of
replay value also works against the game.
Nick Zitzmann
Check out my software page: http://dreamless.home.attbi.com/
Go there to send me E-Mail!
"La la la! I sing, too! For food, for food! La la la!"
- Gabo, Dragon Warrior VII
Rob Browning
The writing.
Rob
Owner of 2501 Netstalker Points awarded by Corwin of Amber, mainly
because Atma's just too damn attractive to get away from.
Gave 7499 Netstalker Points to Cypher because there's no such thing as
a good day on AGFF without JT bashing!
Owner of David Watson, rec.arts.anime.misc
"There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably
in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you.
Fool me -- you can't get fooled again."
--George W. Bush, 43rd President of the United States
Rob Browning
wrote:
>
>"John Cable" <jcc...@comcast.hurfnet> wrote in message
>news:tcoivugbe2ernm4dd...@4ax.com...
>> I'm making a list. Possibly going to write a review for a website
>> (one that isn't my own).
>>
>> And religious symbolism is a given, so that's not necessary.
>
>Religious symbolism is a bad thing?
It is in Xenogears.
supo
>I'm making a list. Possibly going to write a review for a website
>(one that isn't my own).
>
>And religious symbolism is a given, so that's not necessary.
>
More Mech fighting... less chat.
Honestly I loved every thing about the game, especially the story. I can't wait
for XenoSaga and it's sequels to come out.
Steve Jones
news:4olcvu8tujtp0k290...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 13 Dec 2002 02:03:35 -0500, "Balthasar" <kdj...@nyu.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"John Cable" <jcc...@comcast.hurfnet> wrote in message
> >news:tcoivugbe2ernm4dd...@4ax.com...
> >> I'm making a list. Possibly going to write a review for a website
> >> (one that isn't my own).
> >>
> >> And religious symbolism is a given, so that's not necessary.
> >
> >Religious symbolism is a bad thing?
>
> It is in Xenogears.
CHU CHU DIED FOR YOUR SINS
- Steve
John Cable
Xenogears fans don't even get that. They think it's cool, and not
stupid.
Homyguy Z
"supo" <trunksg...@aol.comm> wrote in message
news:20021214035346...@mb-fz.aol.com...
> John Cable wrote
>
> >I'm making a list. Possibly going to write a review for a website
> >(one that isn't my own).
> >
> >And religious symbolism is a given, so that's not necessary.
> >
>
> More Mech fighting... less chat.
I would say that Xenogears needed less of everything it had.
-Homyguy Z
Homyguy Z
"kwarlord2004" <ab...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uvip0ud...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "John Cable" <jcc...@comcast.hurfnet> wrote in message
> news:tcoivugbe2ernm4dd...@4ax.com...
> > I'm making a list. Possibly going to write a review for a website
> > (one that isn't my own).
> >
> > And religious symbolism is a given, so that's not necessary.
>
> honestly?....I'd have to say the long save breaks on disk 2...and I'm
> talking about one hour long save breaks!
Xenogears is the kind of game that has to take a break it's story sequences
every once in a while to let you save.
-Homyguy Z
kwarlord2004
"Homyguy Z" <chay...@carolina.rr.com> wrote in message
news:RwSK9.22637$uJ5.2...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
As much as I liked the game, even I was put off on the length of dialog on
disk 2.
--
Founder of the Church of the Divine Yuffie
giver of RPG Master points
giver of 20 Dragonslayer points (for owning 20+ RPGs)
titles:
Sorceror of Death's Construction
Defiler of Final Fantasy 8
"I am too a Cowboy! Yippie wippie wippie." The Kaiser, Simpson's Treehouse
of Horror 13
my website:
http://kwarlord.tripod.com/index.html
your PSX saves wanted: (I ONLY deal in saves...)
http://kwarlord.tripod.com/DexDrive.html
The Official AGFF FAQ:
http://kwarlord.tripod.com/AGFFfaq.htm
Homyguy Z
"John Cable" <jcc...@comcast.hurfnet> wrote in message
news:tcoivugbe2ernm4dd...@4ax.com...
> (one that isn't my own).
>
> And religious symbolism is a given, so that's not necessary.
How about the blatant ripoffs scattered throughout it (and completely
through it in the case of Evangelion), such as Fei being encased in
carbonite? Also SOYLENT GREEN IS MADE OF PEOPLE.
While being able to rotate the camera on the field was nice, the perpetual
top-down perspective that forced you to walk around blindly because you're
effectively staring at the floor wasn't. Also, did anyone else notice the
lag right before a random battle? Two seconds to load some crappy screen
shatter transition where you're still walking around but suddenly you
couldn't jump? In a game based almost solely around jumping puzzles, this is
a VERY BAD THING.
I'm sure there was more that bothered me, but I'd have to start a new game
to remember.
-Homyguy Z
Homyguy Z
>
> "Homyguy Z" <chay...@carolina.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:RwSK9.22637$uJ5.2...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> >
> > "kwarlord2004" <ab...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:uvip0ud...@corp.supernews.com...
> > >
> > > "John Cable" <jcc...@comcast.hurfnet> wrote in message
> > > news:tcoivugbe2ernm4dd...@4ax.com...
> > > > I'm making a list. Possibly going to write a review for a website
> > > > (one that isn't my own).
> > > >
> > > > And religious symbolism is a given, so that's not necessary.
> > >
> > > honestly?....I'd have to say the long save breaks on disk 2...and I'm
> > > talking about one hour long save breaks!
> >
> > Xenogears is the kind of game that has to take a break it's story
> sequences
> > every once in a while to let you save.
> >
> > -Homyguy Z
> >
> >
>
> As much as I liked the game, even I was put off on the length of dialog on
> disk 2.
I really enjoyed the game at first, but I could see it had some problems
only a few hours in. By the time I made it to the underground cave with
Bart, I had realized that this game was going to drag on forever.
Solaris was pretty interesting though.
-Homyguy Z
Balthasar
>
> "John Cable" <jcc...@comcast.hurfnet> wrote in message
> news:tcoivugbe2ernm4dd...@4ax.com...
> > I'm making a list. Possibly going to write a review for a website
> > (one that isn't my own).
> >
> > And religious symbolism is a given, so that's not necessary.
>
> How about the blatant ripoffs scattered throughout it (and completely
> through it in the case of Evangelion), such as Fei being encased in
> carbonite? Also SOYLENT GREEN IS MADE OF PEOPLE.
I think the carbonite and the food made of people were meant to be homages
to the respective works or art they originated from. I'd find it very hard
to believe they didn't think the carbonite seen would be especially familiar
to some people. I think in the case of Evangelion it's hard to say Xenogears
ripped it off simply because of the religion-ladden plots or something like
the reluctant hero. A lot of that is based on architypes, common to both
japanese society and probably a lot of other places in the world.
> While being able to rotate the camera on the field was nice, the perpetual
> top-down perspective that forced you to walk around blindly because you're
> effectively staring at the floor wasn't. Also, did anyone else notice the
> lag right before a random battle? Two seconds to load some crappy screen
> shatter transition where you're still walking around but suddenly you
> couldn't jump? In a game based almost solely around jumping puzzles, this
is
> a VERY BAD THING.
Well, clearly a lot of things were affected on the technical side by the
fact that the game was rushed by squaresoft. I'd think the second cd came
off to just about everyone that played it as rushed or incomplete, so it
doesn't seem out of the question to think that they didn't have everything
worked out before that point in the plot either.
> I'm sure there was more that bothered me, but I'd have to start a new game
> to remember.
Weird balance of cut scenes bothered me. A bunch early on, then not much
until that Deus scene and the ending. Gear battles generally looked like
shit, though I think my eyes eventually adjusted to it. The money yields
bothered me a bit, but probably more so when I reached the shop in the
lighthouse. The scenes with the gears being hung up on crosses (with Chu
Chu) was obviously a bit disconcerting too. Yet I still loved this game. Go
figure.
John Cable
wrote:
>
>"Homyguy Z" <chay...@carolina.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:Rw2L9.26631$uJ5.2...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
>>
>> "John Cable" <jcc...@comcast.hurfnet> wrote in message
>> news:tcoivugbe2ernm4dd...@4ax.com...
>> > I'm making a list. Possibly going to write a review for a website
>> > (one that isn't my own).
>> >
>> > And religious symbolism is a given, so that's not necessary.
>>
>> How about the blatant ripoffs scattered throughout it (and completely
>> through it in the case of Evangelion), such as Fei being encased in
>> carbonite? Also SOYLENT GREEN IS MADE OF PEOPLE.
>
>I think the carbonite and the food made of people were meant to be homages
>to the respective works or art they originated from. I'd find it very hard
>to believe they didn't think the carbonite seen would be especially familiar
>to some people. I think in the case of Evangelion it's hard to say Xenogears
>ripped it off simply because of the religion-ladden plots or something like
>the reluctant hero. A lot of that is based on architypes, common to both
>japanese society and probably a lot of other places in the world.
They'd be an homage if the game was good, or if the references were
used well. But since none of the characters really had any reason to
care about them, or personality, or any sort of interest factor,
they're ripoffs.
>Well, clearly a lot of things were affected on the technical side by the
>fact that the game was rushed by squaresoft. I'd think the second cd came
>off to just about everyone that played it as rushed or incomplete, so it
>doesn't seem out of the question to think that they didn't have everything
>worked out before that point in the plot either.
I think what's worse is that it's the exact ending that the creators
wanted. After about 10 years of working on the game, they didn't want
to bother making any more fighting scenes or storyline in between the
parts of the second disc.
>> I'm sure there was more that bothered me, but I'd have to start a new game
>> to remember.
>
>Weird balance of cut scenes bothered me. A bunch early on, then not much
>until that Deus scene and the ending. Gear battles generally looked like
>shit, though I think my eyes eventually adjusted to it. The money yields
>bothered me a bit, but probably more so when I reached the shop in the
>lighthouse. The scenes with the gears being hung up on crosses (with Chu
>Chu) was obviously a bit disconcerting too. Yet I still loved this game. Go
>figure.
I CAN'T FIGURE
Balthasar
"John Cable" <jcc...@comcast.hurfnet> wrote in message
I don't see how your perceptions of the game affect whether they are
actually homages or not.
or if the references were
> used well. But since none of the characters really had any reason to
> care about them,
They don't have to be intricately woven into the story to be homages. A
brief, even obscure reference is all that is needed to consider it a homage.
or personality, or any sort of interest factor,
> they're ripoffs.
You refering to the characters of the game now?
> >Well, clearly a lot of things were affected on the technical side by the
> >fact that the game was rushed by squaresoft. I'd think the second cd came
> >off to just about everyone that played it as rushed or incomplete, so it
> >doesn't seem out of the question to think that they didn't have
everything
> >worked out before that point in the plot either.
>
> I think what's worse is that it's the exact ending that the creators
> wanted.
The head of the project (his name slips my mind) said it didn't end the way
he wanted it to.
After about 10 years of working on the game, they didn't want
> to bother making any more fighting scenes or storyline in between the
> parts of the second disc.
Though I'm sure your comment is mostly tongue in cheek, if you think they
worked on the game that long, why don't you think Gainax ripped off
Xenogears? As it was, Xenogears wasn't completed much after NGE began it's
run in Japan.
John Cable
wrote:
>"John Cable" <jcc...@comcast.hurfnet> wrote in message
>news:89esvucgepoohq697...@4ax.com...
>> They'd be an homage if the game was good,
>
>I don't see how your perceptions of the game affect whether they are
>actually homages or not.
Because the game sucks.
>or if the references were
>> used well. But since none of the characters really had any reason to
>> care about them,
>
>They don't have to be intricately woven into the story to be homages. A
>brief, even obscure reference is all that is needed to consider it a homage.
Can they not be lame?
>or personality, or any sort of interest factor,
>> they're ripoffs.
>
>You refering to the characters of the game now?
Characters would imply that they have personalities or some kind of
thing that defines them. BUT PERHAPS YES
>> >Well, clearly a lot of things were affected on the technical side by the
>> >fact that the game was rushed by squaresoft. I'd think the second cd came
>> >off to just about everyone that played it as rushed or incomplete, so it
>> >doesn't seem out of the question to think that they didn't have
>everything
>> >worked out before that point in the plot either.
>>
>> I think what's worse is that it's the exact ending that the creators
>> wanted.
>
>The head of the project (his name slips my mind) said it didn't end the way
>he wanted it to.
>
>After about 10 years of working on the game, they didn't want
>> to bother making any more fighting scenes or storyline in between the
>> parts of the second disc.
>
>Though I'm sure your comment is mostly tongue in cheek, if you think they
>worked on the game that long, why don't you think Gainax ripped off
>Xenogears? As it was, Xenogears wasn't completed much after NGE began it's
>run in Japan.
I thought that Eva was finished before Xenogears was released.
Homyguy Z
"John Cable" <jcc...@comcast.hurfnet> wrote in message
> On Mon, 16 Dec 2002 21:47:08 -0500, "Balthasar" <kdj...@nyu.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >"John Cable" <jcc...@comcast.hurfnet> wrote in message
> >news:89esvucgepoohq697...@4ax.com...
> >> to bother making any more fighting scenes or storyline in between the
> >> parts of the second disc.
> >
> >Though I'm sure your comment is mostly tongue in cheek, if you think they
> >worked on the game that long, why don't you think Gainax ripped off
> >Xenogears? As it was, Xenogears wasn't completed much after NGE began
it's
> >run in Japan.
>
> I thought that Eva was finished before Xenogears was released.
How accurate is Toastyfrog's XG history in his "Religion in Games" section?
There are a lot of parts that are obviously satire, but if he based it's
chronology loosely on fact, then the game looked a lot less like Eva before
Eva came out.
Anyways, Eva ran in Japan for the first time in 1995. Xenogears was released
in 98.
-Homyguy Z
Homyguy Z
"Balthasar" <kdj...@nyu.edu> wrote in message
news:d2eL9.120$zu2....@typhoon.nyu.edu...
>
> "Homyguy Z" <chay...@carolina.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:Rw2L9.26631$uJ5.2...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> >
> > "John Cable" <jcc...@comcast.hurfnet> wrote in message
> > news:tcoivugbe2ernm4dd...@4ax.com...
> > > I'm making a list. Possibly going to write a review for a website
> > > (one that isn't my own).
> > >
> > > And religious symbolism is a given, so that's not necessary.
> >
> > How about the blatant ripoffs scattered throughout it (and completely
> > through it in the case of Evangelion), such as Fei being encased in
> > carbonite? Also SOYLENT GREEN IS MADE OF PEOPLE.
>
> I think the carbonite and the food made of people were meant to be homages
> to the respective works or art they originated from. I'd find it very hard
> to believe they didn't think the carbonite seen would be especially
familiar
> to some people. I think in the case of Evangelion it's hard to say
Xenogears
> ripped it off simply because of the religion-ladden plots or something
like
> the reluctant hero. A lot of that is based on architypes, common to both
> japanese society and probably a lot of other places in the world.
Most of it was probably intended as homages, but when they are made into
plot devices which several key points of the story are dependant upon it
really feels more like a ripoff. Plus at the game's length, major plot
points of any kind around the end of disc one are going to seem that much
crazier because it is the culmination of everything that's happened for the
last 60 or so hours.
> > While being able to rotate the camera on the field was nice, the
perpetual
> > top-down perspective that forced you to walk around blindly because
you're
> > effectively staring at the floor wasn't. Also, did anyone else notice
the
> > lag right before a random battle? Two seconds to load some crappy screen
> > shatter transition where you're still walking around but suddenly you
> > couldn't jump? In a game based almost solely around jumping puzzles,
this
> is
> > a VERY BAD THING.
>
> Well, clearly a lot of things were affected on the technical side by the
> fact that the game was rushed by squaresoft. I'd think the second cd came
> off to just about everyone that played it as rushed or incomplete, so it
> doesn't seem out of the question to think that they didn't have everything
> worked out before that point in the plot either.
I was thinking mainly of the tower of Babel here. Absurdly difficult jumping
puzzles + high encounter rate + random loss of ability to jump as random
battles load = very bad gameplay experience.
> > I'm sure there was more that bothered me, but I'd have to start a new
game
> > to remember.
>
> Weird balance of cut scenes bothered me. A bunch early on, then not much
> until that Deus scene and the ending. Gear battles generally looked like
> shit, though I think my eyes eventually adjusted to it. The money yields
> bothered me a bit, but probably more so when I reached the shop in the
> lighthouse. The scenes with the gears being hung up on crosses (with Chu
> Chu) was obviously a bit disconcerting too. Yet I still loved this game.
Go
> figure.
It was vaguely enjoyable in places the first time I played it but it was a
mess on almost every level. I see pieces of what could possibly have been a
good game, but it was more chore than fun experience for me.
-Homyguy Z
Ramen Junkie - Mob Boss
news:tcoivugbe2ernm4dd...@4ax.com...
> (one that isn't my own).
>
> And religious symbolism is a given, so that's not necessary.
It's boring as fuck. Every time I've started a new game I got like a half
hour in and just stopped out of boredom.
Homyguy Z
"Ramen Junkie - Mob Boss" <lame...@gamebox.netizen> wrote in message
news:slxL9.1054$ZZ1.71...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
It's few redeeming qualities are completely dwarfed by it's gigantic flaws.
Skip this monster.
-Homyguy Z
Homyguy Z
Xenogears would be a case where the means do not justify the ends, I think.
The designers probably had good intentions, but they relied on their
homages, which were often fairly unsubtle to say the least, as actual plot
points. Fei is literally _encased in carbonite_ in the exact same manner
that Han Solo is in Return of the Jedi. All scenes involving this homage and
resulting from it in any way seem lifted directly from the borrowed source
material. It looks and feels lame.
Homage is the literary application of the idea that imitation is the
sincerest form of flattery. The effectiveness of a homage is entirely
dependent upon what we allow the writers to get away with when taking from
other material. It is up to the players to decide the difference between a
well-intended nod and a serious breach of storytelling protocol. Perception
is everything. Personally I think Xenogears goes a step too far.
As a side note, some instances of homage in literature (many actually) can
be literally proven to be benign gestures towards other works; for instance
the argument would be over if both borrower and borrowee stepped in and
declared it so.
> > >Well, clearly a lot of things were affected on the technical side by
the
> > >fact that the game was rushed by squaresoft. I'd think the second cd
came
> > >off to just about everyone that played it as rushed or incomplete, so
it
> > >doesn't seem out of the question to think that they didn't have
> everything
> > >worked out before that point in the plot either.
> >
> > I think what's worse is that it's the exact ending that the creators
> > wanted.
>
> The head of the project (his name slips my mind) said it didn't end the
way
> he wanted it to.
Hence, six new Xeno games over the next six years.
-Homyguy Z
Balthasar
However, the scene in itself (that is, in it's application) were hardly far
reaching in their importance--replace "encased in carbonite" with "put in
prison," and nothing about that sequence changes. Not nearly the same for
The Empire Strikes Back.
> Homage is the literary application of the idea that imitation is the
> sincerest form of flattery.
I don't see homage as being tied to immitation or necessarily reproduction
of ideas. The meantion of a mere name, in a certain situation, could be
viewed as homage.
The effectiveness of a homage is entirely
> dependent upon what we allow the writers to get away with when taking from
> other material. It is up to the players to decide the difference between a
> well-intended nod and a serious breach of storytelling protocol.
Perception
> is everything.
As it is when judging any piece of art.
Personally I think Xenogears goes a step too far.
>
> As a side note, some instances of homage in literature (many actually) can
> be literally proven to be benign gestures towards other works; for
instance
> the argument would be over if both borrower and borrowee stepped in and
> declared it so.
Those are pretty rare occasions, so if that's the only way to determine
whether something is homage or not, there's really no way to tell. And I
don't see how the authors of the two pieces of work coming together and
saying "it's not a big deal" means one wasn't ripping the other off. Just
as a hypothetical, one author could be good friends with the other author,
and because of various factors (like, say, being much better than the other
author) doesn't feel threatened by his friend freely borrowing his ideas,
especially since everyone knew they got it from him. I would personally
think that people tend to be much more threatened by such "homages" when it
is not clear that author #1 took specific ideas from author #2.
> > > >Well, clearly a lot of things were affected on the technical side by
> the
> > > >fact that the game was rushed by squaresoft. I'd think the second cd
> came
> > > >off to just about everyone that played it as rushed or incomplete, so
> it
> > > >doesn't seem out of the question to think that they didn't have
> > everything
> > > >worked out before that point in the plot either.
> > >
> > > I think what's worse is that it's the exact ending that the creators
> > > wanted.
> >
> > The head of the project (his name slips my mind) said it didn't end the
> way
> > he wanted it to.
>
> Hence, six new Xeno games over the next six years.
Yes. I hear there is at least one very long cinema sequence (up to an hour,
perhaps) in the latest one. Early on at that.
John Cable
wrote:
Usually a homage is just one part that's a loving and very clear
reference to something else. In Xenogears, they seem to act like its
their own.
John Cable
Yes, you can't really have an homage with anything that actually
involves the plot, or furthering it. Or in the case of Xenogears
case, constantly grinding the plot to a halt.
Animeg3282
>It's boring as fuck. Every time I've started a new game I got like a half
>hour in and just stopped out of boredom.
To tell the truth, me too. Maybe it's just my short attention span, but..
--
Hana no Kaitou
http://peachcoloredsky.keenspace.com <--- Archives up.
http://members.fortunecity.com/animeg3282/ <---Fancy Lala Club! Updated 10/17
w/ essays!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fancy_lala <mailing list for Lala fans
Homyguy Z
"John Cable" <jcc...@comcast.hurfnet> wrote in message
Knocking the plot unconscious and dragging it face first through the mud.
-Homyguy Z
Homyguy Z
If it were simply something like that (or if the idea of using any form of
suspended animation as an alternative to regular prisons were integrated
into the plot in a more concrete way), then the scene would have worked just
fine. That's what makes the carbonite thing, an extra step in itself, reek
of ripoff, and come off as completely unneccessary.
> > Homage is the literary application of the idea that imitation is the
> > sincerest form of flattery.
>
> I don't see homage as being tied to immitation or necessarily reproduction
> of ideas. The meantion of a mere name, in a certain situation, could be
> viewed as homage.
Actually, you're right there. I guess what I was thinking of is the more
extreme applications of it. In a general sense, it is just a way of paying
respects within a literary work, whether stated or implied.
This is what I was thinking. It may not be so much that Xenogears borrowed
from other sources too freely, but because of the fact that it is so
self-absorbed a story that it's actually difficult to see some of these
scenes and think "homage" instead of "ripoff". When ideas are borrowed to a
certain degree, this must be made apparent to the viewers through a subtle
implication of some sort....the story has to "know" that it's borrowing
material and switch it's tone a little bit so that we're in on the homage
too. Xenogears takes itself far too seriously for the homages to work
correctly I think.
> > > > >Well, clearly a lot of things were affected on the technical side
by
> > the
> > > > >fact that the game was rushed by squaresoft. I'd think the second
cd
> > came
> > > > >off to just about everyone that played it as rushed or incomplete,
so
> > it
> > > > >doesn't seem out of the question to think that they didn't have
> > > everything
> > > > >worked out before that point in the plot either.
> > > >
> > > > I think what's worse is that it's the exact ending that the creators
> > > > wanted.
> > >
> > > The head of the project (his name slips my mind) said it didn't end
the
> > way
> > > he wanted it to.
> >
> > Hence, six new Xeno games over the next six years.
>
> Yes. I hear there is at least one very long cinema sequence (up to an
hour,
> perhaps) in the latest one. Early on at that.
Xenosaga is rumored to have a cutscene : gameplay ratio close to that of
Metal Gear Solid 2. Though the fact that it's an RPG probably lengthens the
gameplay time.
And I could say the fact that it's a Xeno game might mean that it's
lengthened somewhat artificially, but I figure I'll withhold judgement until
I play it. I'm a bit worried though.
-Homyguy Z
John Cable
wrote:
>Ramen said
>
>>It's boring as fuck. Every time I've started a new game I got like a half
>>hour in and just stopped out of boredom.
>
>To tell the truth, me too. Maybe it's just my short attention span, but..
Actually it's because it's a bad game.
PRETTY SIMPLE.
Homyguy Z
"Animeg3282" <anime...@aol.compelsia> wrote in message
news:20021217130055...@mb-fi.aol.com...
> Ramen said
>
> >It's boring as fuck. Every time I've started a new game I got like a
half
> >hour in and just stopped out of boredom.
>
> To tell the truth, me too. Maybe it's just my short attention span, but..
I think there are legitimate problems with the way the game is presented. I
couldn't get my cousin or several friends to play it either.
-Homyguy Z
John Cable
They're lucky.
Animeg3282
>I think there are legitimate problems with the way the game is presented. I
>couldn't get my cousin or several friends to play it either.
But I stopped when I was wandering around in caves for hours with no relief. I
probably forgot the directions to get out..
Dan Posluns
"Homyguy Z" <chay...@carolina.rr.com> wrote:
> > > How about the blatant ripoffs scattered throughout it (and completely
> > > through it in the case of Evangelion), such as Fei being encased in
> > > carbonite? Also SOYLENT GREEN IS MADE OF PEOPLE.
> >
> > I think the carbonite and the food made of people were meant to be homages
> > to the respective works or art they originated from. I'd find it very hard
> > to believe they didn't think the carbonite seen would be especially
> familiar
> > to some people. I think in the case of Evangelion it's hard to say
> Xenogears
> > ripped it off simply because of the religion-ladden plots or something
> like
> > the reluctant hero. A lot of that is based on architypes, common to both
> > japanese society and probably a lot of other places in the world.
>
> Most of it was probably intended as homages, but when they are made into
> plot devices which several key points of the story are dependant upon it
> really feels more like a ripoff. Plus at the game's length, major plot
> points of any kind around the end of disc one are going to seem that much
> crazier because it is the culmination of everything that's happened for the
> last 60 or so hours.
When an independently successful and superior story decides to include
an offhand reference to someone else's work, I consider it to be paying
homage.
When a mediocre product with no history of success on its own uses other
stories' content as a crutch, I consider it to be ripping off.
You guys can decide for yourself where Xenogears lies on the spectrum,
but IMO whether it was tribute or plagiarism, it was indicative that the
writers/translators didn't feel that the script stood on its own merit,
and in that way it brings the quality of the game down.
It's like Secret of Evermore: when the makers of a crappy game resort to
making references to other, more successful games, it only helps to
affirm said crappiness.
Dan.
--
Dan Posluns - remove "nospam" from my e-mail address to reply
http://msw.mcmaster.ca/~poslundc
ICQ: 35758902
Balthasar
"Dan Posluns" <d...@removeallexceptdanposluns.com> wrote in message
news:dan-57EDF7.1...@news.cogeco.ca...
History of success is irrelevant. You don't think a popular series can't
steal ideas from something else? If not, you're delusional.
on its own uses other
> stories' content as a crutch, I consider it to be ripping off.
What about the scene in question made it a cruch to the story?
> You guys can decide for yourself where Xenogears lies on the spectrum,
> but IMO whether it was tribute or plagiarism, it was indicative that the
> writers/translators didn't feel that the script stood on its own merit,
> and in that way it brings the quality of the game down.
Floating islands. Ever occur to you this idea is far from original? Also
ever occur to you that it's in probably 50% of japanese rpg's? Interresting
how elements like these don't bother you.
> It's like Secret of Evermore: when the makers of a crappy game resort to
> making references to other, more successful games, it only helps to
> affirm said crappiness.
OK
Dan Posluns
"Balthasar" <kdj...@nyu.edu> wrote:
Xenogears wasn't a popular series before the first game was created;
correct me if I'm wrong, but temporal logic would seem to preclude the
notion.
> on its own uses other
> > stories' content as a crutch, I consider it to be ripping off.
>
> What about the scene in question made it a cruch to the story?
I don't happen to think it was... but one could argue otherwise. In any
case, it's not like there was just a sign you could read that happened
to say "SOYLENT SYSTEMS" on it (which I would consider a passing
reference); they spent an entire cut-scene dwelling on it (which
probably isn't a crutch, but I don't consider it to be just a passing
reference either).
> > You guys can decide for yourself where Xenogears lies on the spectrum,
> > but IMO whether it was tribute or plagiarism, it was indicative that the
> > writers/translators didn't feel that the script stood on its own merit,
> > and in that way it brings the quality of the game down.
>
> Floating islands. Ever occur to you this idea is far from original? Also
> ever occur to you that it's in probably 50% of japanese rpg's? Interresting
> how elements like these don't bother you.
There's a difference between copying ideas and making direct references
to other people's work.
If I make a story where a car can travel through time, that's one thing.
The idea has been used before, and hopefully I'm just using it as a
vehicle to advance my story. But if it happens to be a DeLorean with a
Flux Capacitor that needs to reach 88 mph in order to cross the
time-travel threshold, then it's no longer just the idea I'm reusing;
instead I'm making a direct reference to - you guessed it - Police
Academy, and unless my story has already proven itself independently
successful then I'm probably just trying to leech off of the success of
their franchise. (Which is why I would be instantly sued by Warner
Brothers, the producers of Police Academy.)
Leviathan
Police Academy
har har
Balthasar
No it wouldn't. If it's a series, there's going to be more than one, right?
Unless it's all created at the same time in a vacuum, I don't see how
stealing can't occur between it's inception and it's finale. Being popular
is an even more assinine reason to point to the inability of another to
steal ideas. And speaking of which, though I never really cared about this
particular subject, I wonder how original the Star Wars ideas were,
considering the acusations that many of it's "original" ideas were lifted
from other sources.
> > on its own uses other
> > > stories' content as a crutch, I consider it to be ripping off.
> >
> > What about the scene in question made it a cruch to the story?
>
> I don't happen to think it was... but one could argue otherwise.
I don't see how.
In any
> case, it's not like there was just a sign you could read that happened
> to say "SOYLENT SYSTEMS" on it (which I would consider a passing
> reference); they spent an entire cut-scene dwelling on it (which
> probably isn't a crutch, but I don't consider it to be just a passing
> reference either).
Well, for one, just calling it "Soylent Systems" and then leaving it at that
wouldn't have made much sense. Further, if you really look at the Soylent
System, it was really more a reference in name than in practice. If you
recall, it wasn't really humans that were being processed. I guess
technically you could call them humans (as they sometimes did in the game),
but they were only humans /before/ the were subjected to biological testing,
turned into wells, and then disposed of. If I recall correctly, the Soylent
System was a lab (for their creation--though actually the scientists were
trying to do more than just create them), and a disposal facility, where
they were sliced, diced, and canned. Also, they were used as a means to
control the people of Solaris though the additives put into it. This bares
little resemblence to what I have read about Soylent Green (from what I have
read about it, anyway), in which the food were people (untested for any
reason), and turned into food because there were very few natural sources of
food left in the world, due to heavy pollution. So, in that way, the themes
of both also vary greatly. I'm a little surprised you wouldn't try to levy
this sort of argument against Xenogears heavy influence by "A Brave New
World," in which Xenogears bears much more resemblence (in
theme)--especially in the Solaris sections. In fact, that's how the people
are chosen for testing and subsequent disposal--being a lower class or
"lamb."
> > > You guys can decide for yourself where Xenogears lies on the spectrum,
> > > but IMO whether it was tribute or plagiarism, it was indicative that
the
> > > writers/translators didn't feel that the script stood on its own
merit,
> > > and in that way it brings the quality of the game down.
> >
> > Floating islands. Ever occur to you this idea is far from original? Also
> > ever occur to you that it's in probably 50% of japanese rpg's?
Interresting
> > how elements like these don't bother you.
>
> There's a difference between copying ideas and making direct references
> to other people's work.
Yeah, I'd say so. Though, would you consider it a "ripoff" if one person
takes another person's ideas, and updates them/improves them enough to make
them their own?
> If I make a story where a car can travel through time, that's one thing.
> The idea has been used before, and hopefully I'm just using it as a
> vehicle to advance my story. But if it happens to be a DeLorean with a
> Flux Capacitor that needs to reach 88 mph in order to cross the
> time-travel threshold, then it's no longer just the idea I'm reusing;
This is nothing like the similarities between the Soylent System and Soylent
Green.
instead I'm making a direct reference to - you guessed it - Police
> Academy, and unless my story has already proven itself independently
> successful
Being independently successful doesn't give you licence to take other's
ideas for your own.
then I'm probably just trying to leech off of the success of
> their franchise.
Or trying to take what you consider a good idea and make it your own. You
wouldn't consider someone litterally "stealing" the creative ideas of
someone else if the thief in question has a popular film series and the
other just made an independant film (from where the ideas were stolen)?
(Which is why I would be instantly sued by Warner
> Brothers, the producers of Police Academy.)
Police Academy was pretty funny. I think I got sorta bored with it after...I
think 2 or 3.
Dan Posluns
"Balthasar" <kdj...@nyu.edu> wrote:
> > Xenogears wasn't a popular series before the first game was created;
> > correct me if I'm wrong, but temporal logic would seem to preclude the
> > notion.
>
> No it wouldn't. If it's a series, there's going to be more than one, right?
> Unless it's all created at the same time in a vacuum, I don't see how
> stealing can't occur between it's inception and it's finale. Being popular
> is an even more assinine reason to point to the inability of another to
> steal ideas. And speaking of which, though I never really cared about this
> particular subject, I wonder how original the Star Wars ideas were,
> considering the acusations that many of it's "original" ideas were lifted
> from other sources.
OK, you're starting to take this stuff WAY out of context. My whole
point when referring to the popularity of a series is that if a game in
an extremely well-established series (say, Final Fantasy) were to make a
direct reference to some other piece of pop culture (eg. if some
character were to say "my spider sense is tingling"), while it may
constitute extremely poor writing it doesn't necessarily reflect an
attempt to leech off the popularity of the Spider Man franchise, since
the series already has its own popularity.
If, on the other hand, it's done by a game that has yet to amass such
popularity - such as the first game in a series (eg. Xenogears) - or a
game that is clearly half-assed in other respects, it can easily be
construed as trying to rip off the popularity of another series. My
textbook example of this is Secret of Evermore, which was both the North
American HQ of Square first attempt at making their own game (so they
had no credibility or popularity of their own to begin with) and was
also very half-assed and lackluster in many respects. It's very easy to
construe their inclusion of characters from FF4 and FF6 as an attempt to
leech off of the success of Square Japan's work; in fact, that's what
they were probably doing.
I don't know where you see Star Wars fitting into the picture. Once
again, I'm not talking about copying ideas here; I'm talking about
making specific references.
> > > on its own uses other
> > > > stories' content as a crutch, I consider it to be ripping off.
> > >
> > > What about the scene in question made it a cruch to the story?
> >
> > I don't happen to think it was... but one could argue otherwise.
>
> I don't see how.
Then use your imagination. BIRT the scene in XG with the Soylent Systems
was an isolated moment in the plot that attempted to evoke an emotional
response without really tying in significantly to the rest of the plot
or its themes, and without ever being returned to or resolved. As such,
the game was using it as a crutch to try to instill some emotion into a
bland part of the story and the reference to Soylent Green was nothing
more than an attempt to borrow off of another story's success in evoking
passion and humanity. You can argue whatever side you want; I don't
really care. My only point is that both sides have merit and can be
argued for or against.
The only thing I have to say here is to repeat that I'm not talking
about the stealing of ideas, but the direct referencing of other
people's work.
If, as you say, the Soylent Systems were so different from Soylent
Green, then why name them Soylent Systems?
> > There's a difference between copying ideas and making direct references
> > to other people's work.
>
> Yeah, I'd say so. Though, would you consider it a "ripoff" if one person
> takes another person's ideas, and updates them/improves them enough to make
> them their own?
I don't know, but I do know that if they directly reference the original
material then they will lose a lot of credibility for any new thought
that they put into it, since they clearly didn't think that their
improvements would be sufficient without also borrowing the success of
the original.
> > If I make a story where a car can travel through time, that's one thing.
> > The idea has been used before, and hopefully I'm just using it as a
> > vehicle to advance my story. But if it happens to be a DeLorean with a
> > Flux Capacitor that needs to reach 88 mph in order to cross the
> > time-travel threshold, then it's no longer just the idea I'm reusing;
>
> This is nothing like the similarities between the Soylent System and Soylent
> Green.
They're exactly the same. The name "Soylent Systems" makes a direct
reference to Soylent Green, whereas merely having the
human-disposal-unit without naming them "Soylent Systems" would merely
be copying the idea. Same as having a flux capacitor makes a direct
reference to <insert movie title here> whereas having a car that travels
in time just copies the idea.
> instead I'm making a direct reference to - you guessed it - Police
> > Academy, and unless my story has already proven itself independently
> > successful
>
> Being independently successful doesn't give you licence to take other's
> ideas for your own.
I never said it did. I'm not making value judgements; I'm just showing
where the interpretations come from.
> then I'm probably just trying to leech off of the success of
> > their franchise.
>
> Or trying to take what you consider a good idea and make it your own. You
> wouldn't consider someone litterally "stealing" the creative ideas of
> someone else if the thief in question has a popular film series and the
> other just made an independant film (from where the ideas were stolen)?
Once again: I wasn't talking about copying an idea in the statement you
are referring to; I was talking about making direct references.
Balthasar
So you're saying the creaters of a series, such as the Final Fantasy
series--because they have a popular series--would not feel the need to try
to extend their reach of popularity by making a reference such as "my spidey
sense is tingling," and instead would more likely reflect poor writing?
Well, why would it be seen as poor writing if it doesn't reflect such an
attempt?
> If, on the other hand, it's done by a game that has yet to amass such
> popularity - such as the first game in a series (eg. Xenogears) - or a
> game that is clearly half-assed in other respects, it can easily be
> construed as trying to rip off the popularity of another series.
Oh sure, one might have the ability to think that, but I don't see the point
in your defending one's ability to make poor assumptions.
My
> textbook example of this is Secret of Evermore, which was both the North
> American HQ of Square first attempt at making their own game (so they
> had no credibility or popularity of their own to begin with) and was
> also very half-assed and lackluster in many respects. It's very easy to
> construe their inclusion of characters from FF4 and FF6 as an attempt to
> leech off of the success of Square Japan's work; in fact, that's what
> they were probably doing.
So what do you call every Final Fantasy including a character named Cid?
Leeching off their own success? I would bring up Kingdom Hearts, but
considering the negative bias towards that game here, I can guess what a
response to that would be.
> I don't know where you see Star Wars fitting into the picture.
Carbonite freezing. Maybe you weren't paying enough attention to the debate
you entered.
Once
> again, I'm not talking about copying ideas here; I'm talking about
> making specific references.
So your issue is mainly the idea that something which has yet to be popular
making references to things which may or may not yet be popular (btw,
Soylent Green is not as well known a movie as you would think, probably less
well known in Japan)? What about art pieces that parody pop culture?
Movies, for example (I'm sure you can think of a few in recent years that
have done this)? Is there any difference there?
> > > > on its own uses other
> > > > > stories' content as a crutch, I consider it to be ripping off.
> > > >
> > > > What about the scene in question made it a cruch to the story?
> > >
> > > I don't happen to think it was... but one could argue otherwise.
> >
> > I don't see how.
>
> Then use your imagination.
I was being facetious.
BIRT the scene in XG with the Soylent Systems
> was an isolated moment in the plot
Absolutely not. Not only was it not isolated, the weight of the event
carried on throughout the rest of the game. Unless you think the explanation
of the source of the wells/reapers (amongst a few other things) wasn't
significant in any way.
that attempted to evoke an emotional
> response without really tying in significantly to the rest of the plot
> or its themes,
It definately did. I thought it tied in a lot with the artificial class
system invoked by Solaris, which affected a huge chunk of the plot. It was
also a major theme of the game, so it tied into one of it's themes as well
(as I explained earlier).
>and without ever being returned to or resolved.
Resolved in what way? Besides being destroyed?
As such,
> the game was using it as a crutch to try to instill some emotion into a
> bland part of the story and the reference to Soylent Green was nothing
> more than an attempt to borrow off of another story's success in evoking
> passion and humanity.
Considering your premise is false, no.
You can argue whatever side you want; I don't
> really care. My only point is that both sides have merit and can be
> argued for or against.
My point is the side you argue for is somewhat uninformed and has a lot less
merit than you think.
Yet, you strangely ignore the fact that not only was the Soylent System
/not/ Soylent Green, but that it was actually important to the plot of the
game. The requirement of being popular in order to make a pop culture
reference seems just as weak as what I believed you were previously arguing
for (the ability to borrow ideas because your work is popular). And most of
your examples of what you call "direct referencing" and distinguish from
"stealing," I would say are in fact actually examples of outright stealing,
rather than just taking a piece of an idea (such as the one later on in the
post, with the time travel).
> If, as you say, the Soylent Systems were so different from Soylent
> Green, then why name them Soylent Systems?
I figured you would say that. Which sorta makes the argument circular,
considering it was established previously that such references are only okay
when the reference itself is not an important part of the plot and is more
"passing" than anything. So which is it? Does such a reference need to be
important to the plot, or doesn't it?
> > > There's a difference between copying ideas and making direct
references
> > > to other people's work.
> >
> > Yeah, I'd say so. Though, would you consider it a "ripoff" if one person
> > takes another person's ideas, and updates them/improves them enough to
make
> > them their own?
>
> I don't know, but I do know that if they directly reference the original
> material then they will lose a lot of credibility for any new thought
> that they put into it, since they clearly didn't think that their
> improvements would be sufficient without also borrowing the success of
> the original.
But if they're borrowing the actual idea, what difference does it make? Does
not the success of the idea have anything to do with the /idea/ itself? The
distinctions you make here are a bit confusing.
> > > If I make a story where a car can travel through time, that's one
thing.
> > > The idea has been used before, and hopefully I'm just using it as a
> > > vehicle to advance my story. But if it happens to be a DeLorean with a
> > > Flux Capacitor that needs to reach 88 mph in order to cross the
> > > time-travel threshold, then it's no longer just the idea I'm reusing;
> >
> > This is nothing like the similarities between the Soylent System and
Soylent
> > Green.
>
> They're exactly the same. The name "Soylent Systems" makes a direct
> reference to Soylent Green, whereas merely having the
> human-disposal-unit without naming them "Soylent Systems" would merely
> be copying the idea.
You say "merely" as if that would be more acceptable. Taking the actual idea
is better to you than making a passing reference?
Same as having a flux capacitor makes a direct
> reference to <insert movie title here> whereas having a car that travels
> in time just copies the idea.
So which is more acceptable to you? Copying an idea, or making a reference
to an idea? (And I don't think "flux capacitors" are the creative property
of any movie--or maybe I'm imagining the fact that you can find one in a
good percentage of sci fi films).
> > instead I'm making a direct reference to - you guessed it - Police
> > > Academy, and unless my story has already proven itself independently
> > > successful
> >
> > Being independently successful doesn't give you licence to take other's
> > ideas for your own.
>
> I never said it did. I'm not making value judgements; I'm just showing
> where the interpretations come from.
I'm fully aware how someone could think Soylent Systems was the creators of
Xenogears attempt to steal the ideas of others. But /how/ someone could
think that is not what was being discussed. It was the factuality of such a
statement.
> > then I'm probably just trying to leech off of the success of
> > > their franchise.
> >
> > Or trying to take what you consider a good idea and make it your own.
You
> > wouldn't consider someone litterally "stealing" the creative ideas of
> > someone else if the thief in question has a popular film series and the
> > other just made an independant film (from where the ideas were stolen)?
>
> Once again: I wasn't talking about copying an idea in the statement you
> are referring to; I was talking about making direct references.
Well, for one, your distinction of "direct references" from stealing, at
least to me, sound like just two different ways of stealing, as opposed to
your "spidey sense" example, which I see as simply making a reference to
something else. Also, my question was a continuation of the discussion of a
comment you made earlier: "When a mediocre product with no history of
success on its own uses other stories' content as a crutch, I consider it to
be ripping off", than necessarily an isolated comment about whatever you
said above. You claimed history of success and your value judgments of the
product, as well as the way said "mediocre" product uses the material of
other stories, determines whether something is a homage or ripping someone
off--I have been merely challenging this notion.
Dan Posluns
"Balthasar" <kdj...@nyu.edu> wrote:
It might not be. Although it would certainly be uncharacteristic of a
Final Fantasy game, so it probably would be very inappropriate. This is
all hypothetical, of course.
> > If, on the other hand, it's done by a game that has yet to amass such
> > popularity - such as the first game in a series (eg. Xenogears) - or a
> > game that is clearly half-assed in other respects, it can easily be
> > construed as trying to rip off the popularity of another series.
>
> Oh sure, one might have the ability to think that, but I don't see the point
> in your defending one's ability to make poor assumptions.
I don't think it's a poor assumption; I think it happens that way an
awful lot. Whether or not it happens in Xenogears is another matter.
> My
> > textbook example of this is Secret of Evermore, which was both the North
> > American HQ of Square first attempt at making their own game (so they
> > had no credibility or popularity of their own to begin with) and was
> > also very half-assed and lackluster in many respects. It's very easy to
> > construe their inclusion of characters from FF4 and FF6 as an attempt to
> > leech off of the success of Square Japan's work; in fact, that's what
> > they were probably doing.
>
> So what do you call every Final Fantasy including a character named Cid?
> Leeching off their own success? I would bring up Kingdom Hearts, but
> considering the negative bias towards that game here, I can guess what a
> response to that would be.
Having a Cid in every episode is a trademark of the series. There's a
difference, although perhaps not such a big difference, as writers can
fall prey to the glorification of their own traditions as well (take the
major overdose of Chocobos in FF7). I haven't played Kingdom Hearts.
> > I don't know where you see Star Wars fitting into the picture.
>
> Carbonite freezing. Maybe you weren't paying enough attention to the debate
> you entered.
I was referring to your argument about unoriginality in Star Wars, not
the carbon freezing. Spare me your character attacks; they don't make
you look any smarter.
> Once
> > again, I'm not talking about copying ideas here; I'm talking about
> > making specific references.
>
> So your issue is mainly the idea that something which has yet to be popular
> making references to things which may or may not yet be popular (btw,
> Soylent Green is not as well known a movie as you would think, probably less
> well known in Japan)? What about art pieces that parody pop culture?
> Movies, for example (I'm sure you can think of a few in recent years that
> have done this)? Is there any difference there?
Yes, the difference is that one is parodying, and the other is not.
> > > > > on its own uses other
> > > > > > stories' content as a crutch, I consider it to be ripping off.
> > > > >
> > > > > What about the scene in question made it a cruch to the story?
> > > >
> > > > I don't happen to think it was... but one could argue otherwise.
> > >
> > > I don't see how.
> >
> > Then use your imagination.
>
> I was being facetious.
Then you can provide an example that you deem as satisfactory, since you
didn't like mine.
<snip opinions on the example resolution>
> You can argue whatever side you want; I don't
> > really care. My only point is that both sides have merit and can be
> > argued for or against.
>
> My point is the side you argue for is somewhat uninformed and has a lot less
> merit than you think.
I'm not arguing for either side of it. All I did was give you the
resolution as an example of how the crutch argument could be made. I'm
not interested in it. My opinion doesn't really fall on either side of
it, anyway.
> > The only thing I have to say here is to repeat that I'm not talking
> > about the stealing of ideas, but the direct referencing of other
> > people's work.
>
> Yet, you strangely ignore the fact that not only was the Soylent System
> /not/ Soylent Green, but that it was actually important to the plot of the
> game. The requirement of being popular in order to make a pop culture
> reference seems just as weak as what I believed you were previously arguing
> for (the ability to borrow ideas because your work is popular). And most of
> your examples of what you call "direct referencing" and distinguish from
> "stealing," I would say are in fact actually examples of outright stealing,
> rather than just taking a piece of an idea (such as the one later on in the
> post, with the time travel).
I'm not ignoring it, it simply isn't relevant to my argument. And I've
never said that you need to be popular in order to make a pop-culture
reference. What I said is that referencing other people's work in what's
supposed to be an original story is often an attempt to leech off of the
success of that other work. It follows, however, that this is less
likely to be the case if the franchise making the reference is already
successful.
That doesn't mean it's inherently right, or wrong, or good, or bad, or
anything. I'm not distinguishing direct referencing from stealing. The
key word was "ideas", not "stealing".
And any use of the word "Soylent" to describe a system that turns people
into food is clearly a reference to Soylent Green. I think you'd be
hard-pressed to find anyone who knows of Soylent Green that wouldn't
make that connection, since that's the only other known occurrence of
the word "Soylent" in our vernacular.
> > If, as you say, the Soylent Systems were so different from Soylent
> > Green, then why name them Soylent Systems?
>
> I figured you would say that. Which sorta makes the argument circular,
> considering it was established previously that such references are only okay
> when the reference itself is not an important part of the plot and is more
> "passing" than anything. So which is it? Does such a reference need to be
> important to the plot, or doesn't it?
In my opinion, any direct reference of another unrelated work in a story
that's supposed to be original usually weakens it, regardless of whether
or not it's important to the plot.
If you've got to make a reference, though, a passing reference will
almost always be the lesser of evils, by the virtue of there being less
of it.
If you really care about my opinion of Xenogears, I don't happen to
think it was attempting to leech off of anyone's popularity with the
references it made, since they were significantly buried in the story. I
just think it made them completely unnecessarily, and I look down on it
for that.
> > I don't know, but I do know that if they directly reference the original
> > material then they will lose a lot of credibility for any new thought
> > that they put into it, since they clearly didn't think that their
> > improvements would be sufficient without also borrowing the success of
> > the original.
>
> But if they're borrowing the actual idea, what difference does it make? Does
> not the success of the idea have anything to do with the /idea/ itself? The
> distinctions you make here are a bit confusing.
The difference is in evidence and even self-admission of plagiarism.
Which isn't a value judgement, and it doesn't mean I condone ripping off
ideas. If you ask me, the Breene (sp?) from the later incarnations of
Star Trek are a huge rip-off of Boba Fett from Star Wars. But calling
them Breene instead of Bobas makes the difference between it just
seeming really unoriginal and Lucas suing their pants off.
> > > > If I make a story where a car can travel through time, that's one
> thing.
> > > > The idea has been used before, and hopefully I'm just using it as a
> > > > vehicle to advance my story. But if it happens to be a DeLorean with a
> > > > Flux Capacitor that needs to reach 88 mph in order to cross the
> > > > time-travel threshold, then it's no longer just the idea I'm reusing;
> > >
> > > This is nothing like the similarities between the Soylent System and
> Soylent
> > > Green.
> >
> > They're exactly the same. The name "Soylent Systems" makes a direct
> > reference to Soylent Green, whereas merely having the
> > human-disposal-unit without naming them "Soylent Systems" would merely
> > be copying the idea.
>
> You say "merely" as if that would be more acceptable. Taking the actual idea
> is better to you than making a passing reference?
I wasn't saying "merely" as if it were more acceptable. Once again, I'm
not making value judgements here. "Merely" referred to a difference in
complexity, not morality.
> Same as having a flux capacitor makes a direct
> > reference to <insert movie title here> whereas having a car that travels
> > in time just copies the idea.
>
> So which is more acceptable to you? Copying an idea, or making a reference
> to an idea? (And I don't think "flux capacitors" are the creative property
> of any movie--or maybe I'm imagining the fact that you can find one in a
> good percentage of sci fi films).
Copying an idea can be good or bad, depending on how it is implemented.
I don't begrudge Xenogears for the Soylent Systems themselves; take away
the title, and as you pointed out, it's not even obvious that they got
the idea from Soylent Green. Making a direct reference to another work
almost always weakens an original work, however, and should be kept to a
minimum. In XG, the direct reference to Soylent Green was completely
unnecessary and did not bring anything to the story.
And "flux capacitor" was in the context of being an engine for
time-travel in a time-travelling car. While the words "flux capacitor"
may or may not get thrown around a lot in science fiction (I don't
really know) that specific context is pretty hard to miss.
> > > instead I'm making a direct reference to - you guessed it - Police
> > > > Academy, and unless my story has already proven itself independently
> > > > successful
> > >
> > > Being independently successful doesn't give you licence to take other's
> > > ideas for your own.
> >
> > I never said it did. I'm not making value judgements; I'm just showing
> > where the interpretations come from.
>
> I'm fully aware how someone could think Soylent Systems was the creators of
> Xenogears attempt to steal the ideas of others. But /how/ someone could
> think that is not what was being discussed. It was the factuality of such a
> statement.
My whole point is that it doesn't matter whether or not they were
stealing the idea. Stealing the idea doesn't factor into it. The second
they mentioned "Soylent" instead of giving it their own name or none at
all, their credibility went down the tubes. Even if their implementation
was completely original and inspired, they were reduced to mere hacks by
virtue of not coming up with their own material.
> > > then I'm probably just trying to leech off of the success of
> > > > their franchise.
> > >
> > > Or trying to take what you consider a good idea and make it your own.
> You
> > > wouldn't consider someone litterally "stealing" the creative ideas of
> > > someone else if the thief in question has a popular film series and the
> > > other just made an independant film (from where the ideas were stolen)?
> >
> > Once again: I wasn't talking about copying an idea in the statement you
> > are referring to; I was talking about making direct references.
>
> Well, for one, your distinction of "direct references" from stealing, at
> least to me, sound like just two different ways of stealing, as opposed to
> your "spidey sense" example, which I see as simply making a reference to
> something else. Also, my question was a continuation of the discussion of a
> comment you made earlier: "When a mediocre product with no history of
> success on its own uses other stories' content as a crutch, I consider it to
> be ripping off", than necessarily an isolated comment about whatever you
> said above. You claimed history of success and your value judgments of the
> product, as well as the way said "mediocre" product uses the material of
> other stories, determines whether something is a homage or ripping someone
> off--I have been merely challenging this notion.
I provided that statement as an example of the opposing end of a
spectrum. If you'll recall, at the other end was a story making a
passing reference that can stand on its own and had no use for borrowing
the popularity of another story. What perhaps wasn't clear is that at
both ends of the spectrum, I intended for it to mean making a DIRECT
reference, not just borrowing (or stealing) an idea. That is integral to
my meaning.
As I said earlier in this post, I don't believe ANY direct reference to
another work is a good thing, and although there are some situations
that legitimately demand it, they should always be minimized. The
spectrum I described there basically ranges from when it is most
forgiveable to when it isn't.
Balthasar
That wasn't the point. I think you're avoiding the question (note: I
expected an answer based on the hypothetical, not what they really do).
> > > If, on the other hand, it's done by a game that has yet to amass such
> > > popularity - such as the first game in a series (eg. Xenogears) - or a
> > > game that is clearly half-assed in other respects, it can easily be
> > > construed as trying to rip off the popularity of another series.
> >
> > Oh sure, one might have the ability to think that, but I don't see the
point
> > in your defending one's ability to make poor assumptions.
>
> I don't think it's a poor assumption; I think it happens that way an
> awful lot.
Just because it happens a lot doesn't make it a legitimate assumption. Part
of your assumption seems to have been based upon the fact that you either
hadn't played the game (at least up to that point), or didn't fully
understand what was going on in that section onward (note: that was not a
character attack).
>Whether or not it happens in Xenogears is another matter.
A matter which was being discussed.
> > My
> > > textbook example of this is Secret of Evermore, which was both the
North
> > > American HQ of Square first attempt at making their own game (so they
> > > had no credibility or popularity of their own to begin with) and was
> > > also very half-assed and lackluster in many respects. It's very easy
to
> > > construe their inclusion of characters from FF4 and FF6 as an attempt
to
> > > leech off of the success of Square Japan's work; in fact, that's what
> > > they were probably doing.
> >
> > So what do you call every Final Fantasy including a character named Cid?
> > Leeching off their own success? I would bring up Kingdom Hearts, but
> > considering the negative bias towards that game here, I can guess what a
> > response to that would be.
>
> Having a Cid in every episode is a trademark of the series.
Yeah, it's a trademark because they do it all the time. Would not leeching
off one's success preceed something being established as a trademark (in
this way)?
There's a
> difference, although perhaps not such a big difference, as writers can
> fall prey to the glorification of their own traditions as well (take the
> major overdose of Chocobos in FF7). I haven't played Kingdom Hearts.
Glorification, sure. But why? Is Cid a popular recurring charater? Are there
not final fantasy fans (though probably a tad obsessed) that would be
disappointed if Cid didn't surface in some way? Why does he need to keep
showing up (that is, is it necessary in any way)? What if one of the
creators of Final Fantasy made the claim that Cid's constant reappearance is
homage to some character named Cid from a book he read a lot as a kid? Would
it make it any worse?
> > > I don't know where you see Star Wars fitting into the picture.
> >
> > Carbonite freezing. Maybe you weren't paying enough attention to the
debate
> > you entered.
>
> I was referring to your argument about unoriginality in Star Wars, not
> the carbon freezing. Spare me your character attacks; they don't make
> you look any smarter.
It wasn't a character attack. Where you stepped in was a debate about
whether two instances I labeled as "homages" were in fact that. One of them
refered to carbonite freezing. That's why I said you might not have been
paying enough attention. You are very defensive.
> > Once
> > > again, I'm not talking about copying ideas here; I'm talking about
> > > making specific references.
> >
> > So your issue is mainly the idea that something which has yet to be
popular
> > making references to things which may or may not yet be popular (btw,
> > Soylent Green is not as well known a movie as you would think, probably
less
> > well known in Japan)? What about art pieces that parody pop culture?
> > Movies, for example (I'm sure you can think of a few in recent years
that
> > have done this)? Is there any difference there?
>
> Yes, the difference is that one is parodying, and the other is not.
Why is that more acceptable? Does good parody not create an individual,
original work?
> > > > > > on its own uses other
> > > > > > > stories' content as a crutch, I consider it to be ripping off.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What about the scene in question made it a cruch to the story?
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't happen to think it was... but one could argue otherwise.
> > > >
> > > > I don't see how.
> > >
> > > Then use your imagination.
> >
> > I was being facetious.
>
> Then you can provide an example that you deem as satisfactory, since you
> didn't like mine.
A satisfactory argument against my claims? Why would I want to do that? And
I said I was being facetious, unless you are refering to something else I
said.
> <snip opinions on the example resolution>
>
> > You can argue whatever side you want; I don't
> > > really care. My only point is that both sides have merit and can be
> > > argued for or against.
> >
> > My point is the side you argue for is somewhat uninformed and has a lot
less
> > merit than you think.
>
> I'm not arguing for either side of it. All I did was give you the
> resolution as an example of how the crutch argument could be made. I'm
> not interested in it. My opinion doesn't really fall on either side of
> it, anyway.
Well, then you defended an argument that I see as weaker (and argued as
such). Why you went on and on about delorians and such if you didn't see
that particular example as being related to xenogears (and you actually
argued it was, when I said it had nothing to do with xenogears, thus
contradicting your claim that you had no argument for either side) is beyond
me.
> > > The only thing I have to say here is to repeat that I'm not talking
> > > about the stealing of ideas, but the direct referencing of other
> > > people's work.
> >
> > Yet, you strangely ignore the fact that not only was the Soylent System
> > /not/ Soylent Green, but that it was actually important to the plot of
the
> > game. The requirement of being popular in order to make a pop culture
> > reference seems just as weak as what I believed you were previously
arguing
> > for (the ability to borrow ideas because your work is popular). And most
of
> > your examples of what you call "direct referencing" and distinguish from
> > "stealing," I would say are in fact actually examples of outright
stealing,
> > rather than just taking a piece of an idea (such as the one later on in
the
> > post, with the time travel).
>
> I'm not ignoring it, it simply isn't relevant to my argument.
It is if you claim that the example I refered to earlier in this post is
somehow related (exactly related, to be specific) to Xenogears use of the
word "Soylent" in the Soylent System.
And I've
> never said that you need to be popular in order to make a pop-culture
> reference. What I said is that referencing other people's work in what's
> supposed to be an original story is often an attempt to leech off of the
> success of that other work. It follows, however, that this is less
> likely to be the case if the franchise making the reference is already
> successful.
You didn't say it was /less/ likely to happen if the work is popular. I'll
quote: "When an independently successful and superior story decides to
include an offhand reference to someone else's work, I consider it to be
paying homage." Big difference. And much of this debate has been predicated
on that comment. Also: "while it may constitute extremely poor writing it
doesn't necessarily reflect an attempt to leech off the popularity of the
Spider Man franchise..." and here's the important part: "/since/ the series
already has its own popularity." When I spoke of a "requirement" to make pop
culture references, I meant that it's a requirement to make those comments
safely, that is, without undue criticism.
> That doesn't mean it's inherently right, or wrong, or good, or bad, or
> anything. I'm not distinguishing direct referencing from stealing. The
> key word was "ideas", not "stealing".
But you need to, because your argument is very unclear otherwise. When your
examples of direct referencing are blatent examples of lifting the ideas of
another, there's no way to find such a thing acceptable, and of course would
then make you automatically right when you compare the situation(s) in
question
> And any use of the word "Soylent" to describe a system that turns people
> into food is clearly a reference to Soylent Green.
I didn't say it wasn't. I said the Soylent System actually bears little
resemblence to Soylent Green. "Little," being the key word. I did explain
what exactly the Soylent System was (well, not totally, but good enough for
this).
I think you'd be
> hard-pressed to find anyone who knows of Soylent Green that wouldn't
> make that connection,
You're supposed to make that connection, but asking other 20-somethings if
they could make that connection is hardly relevant. Nor would it prove your
point here.
since that's the only other known occurrence of
> the word "Soylent" in our vernacular.
You assume everyone has the same vernacular.
> > > If, as you say, the Soylent Systems were so different from Soylent
> > > Green, then why name them Soylent Systems?
> >
> > I figured you would say that. Which sorta makes the argument circular,
> > considering it was established previously that such references are only
okay
> > when the reference itself is not an important part of the plot and is
more
> > "passing" than anything. So which is it? Does such a reference need to
be
> > important to the plot, or doesn't it?
>
> In my opinion, any direct reference of another unrelated work in a story
> that's supposed to be original usually weakens it, regardless of whether
> or not it's important to the plot.
You're dodging the question. Regardless, you've changed your argument enough
that it can't really be disputed that way. Now it's just a matter of taste.
> If you've got to make a reference, though, a passing reference will
> almost always be the lesser of evils, by the virtue of there being less
> of it.
It was passing in name, though I don't know how many times they actually
said "soylent." I think for the most part they just refered to it as
Krelian's Lab.
> If you really care about my opinion of Xenogears, I don't happen to
> think it was attempting to leech off of anyone's popularity with the
> references it made, since they were significantly buried in the story. I
> just think it made them completely unnecessarily, and I look down on it
> for that.
I actually was a little bothered by the fact that the writers decided to
have Fei frozen in "carbonite" rather than just locked away in some special
cell. Putting him in suspended animation made sense under the
circumstances, but it was a bit gratuitous. The Soylent System, however,
didn't bother me nearly as much. Go figure.
> > > I don't know, but I do know that if they directly reference the
original
> > > material then they will lose a lot of credibility for any new thought
> > > that they put into it, since they clearly didn't think that their
> > > improvements would be sufficient without also borrowing the success of
> > > the original.
> >
> > But if they're borrowing the actual idea, what difference does it make?
Does
> > not the success of the idea have anything to do with the /idea/ itself?
The
> > distinctions you make here are a bit confusing.
>
> The difference is in evidence and even self-admission of plagiarism.
So they only lose credibility if they phrase the idea the same as the
originator of the idea? Regardless of how obvious it is that it's still the
same idea?
> Which isn't a value judgement, and it doesn't mean I condone ripping off
> ideas. If you ask me, the Breene (sp?) from the later incarnations of
> Star Trek are a huge rip-off of Boba Fett from Star Wars. But calling
> them Breene instead of Bobas makes the difference between it just
> seeming really unoriginal and Lucas suing their pants off.
So possible legal action is what distingusishes them?
> > > > > If I make a story where a car can travel through time, that's one
> > thing.
> > > > > The idea has been used before, and hopefully I'm just using it as
a
> > > > > vehicle to advance my story. But if it happens to be a DeLorean
with a
> > > > > Flux Capacitor that needs to reach 88 mph in order to cross the
> > > > > time-travel threshold, then it's no longer just the idea I'm
reusing;
> > > >
> > > > This is nothing like the similarities between the Soylent System and
> > Soylent
> > > > Green.
> > >
> > > They're exactly the same. The name "Soylent Systems" makes a direct
> > > reference to Soylent Green, whereas merely having the
> > > human-disposal-unit without naming them "Soylent Systems" would merely
> > > be copying the idea.
> >
> > You say "merely" as if that would be more acceptable. Taking the actual
idea
> > is better to you than making a passing reference?
>
> I wasn't saying "merely" as if it were more acceptable. Once again, I'm
> not making value judgements here. "Merely" referred to a difference in
> complexity, not morality.
I disagree with your use of "direct reference," but okay.
> > Same as having a flux capacitor makes a direct
> > > reference to <insert movie title here> whereas having a car that
travels
> > > in time just copies the idea.
> >
> > So which is more acceptable to you? Copying an idea, or making a
reference
> > to an idea? (And I don't think "flux capacitors" are the creative
property
> > of any movie--or maybe I'm imagining the fact that you can find one in a
> > good percentage of sci fi films).
>
> Copying an idea can be good or bad, depending on how it is implemented.
> I don't begrudge Xenogears for the Soylent Systems themselves; take away
> the title, and as you pointed out, it's not even obvious that they got
> the idea from Soylent Green. Making a direct reference to another work
> almost always weakens an original work, however, and should be kept to a
> minimum. In XG, the direct reference to Soylent Green was completely
> unnecessary and did not bring anything to the story.
Okay, again, this is different from what was previously argued. This is also
different from calling a time machine car a Delorian that is not the actual
delorian. In this case, as I said before, it's really more a matter of taste
than anything else. What you said there has nothing to do with popularity or
being established.
> And "flux capacitor" was in the context of being an engine for
> time-travel in a time-travelling car. While the words "flux capacitor"
> may or may not get thrown around a lot in science fiction (I don't
> really know) that specific context is pretty hard to miss.
I didn't know it's name was specific to use in time travel machines. It was
a side note anyway, and not something I was really disputing.
> > > > instead I'm making a direct reference to - you guessed it - Police
> > > > > Academy, and unless my story has already proven itself
independently
> > > > > successful
> > > >
> > > > Being independently successful doesn't give you licence to take
other's
> > > > ideas for your own.
> > >
> > > I never said it did. I'm not making value judgements; I'm just showing
> > > where the interpretations come from.
> >
> > I'm fully aware how someone could think Soylent Systems was the creators
of
> > Xenogears attempt to steal the ideas of others. But /how/ someone could
> > think that is not what was being discussed. It was the factuality of
such a
> > statement.
>
> My whole point is that it doesn't matter whether or not they were
> stealing the idea. Stealing the idea doesn't factor into it. The second
> they mentioned "Soylent" instead of giving it their own name or none at
> all, their credibility went down the tubes. Even if their implementation
> was completely original and inspired, they were reduced to mere hacks by
> virtue of not coming up with their own material.
But, they did come up with their own material. What they did was use the
name of something else that has already existed. It's probably not even a
copyrighted word, for reasons I haven't figured out yet, because if it was,
Square would have been sued for what they did (at least, I'm pretty sure
they would have). Personally, I think taking someone else's ideas and not
doing anything new or significantly different with it rubs people the wrong
way a lot more then simply using the same name (as usually, when I find
usage of same-name bothers people, it is also followed by the idea it was
originally attached to). There was a legal dispute a while back between
capcom and, I /think/ SNK over creative theft over a character which seemed
to bear a remarkable resemblence to Ryu in both looks and special attacks. I
think the character's name was "Ryo," but again, I don't remember the
incident very clearly.
Which I would liken a lot more to the Xenogears example--however, you
likened Xenogears to an example of outright stealing of creative property.
This is where any possible confusion lies, especially if you're trying to
say Xenogears did not do this (outright steal ideas).
What perhaps wasn't clear is that at
> both ends of the spectrum, I intended for it to mean making a DIRECT
> reference, not just borrowing (or stealing) an idea. That is integral to
> my meaning.
Eh? Direct reference when stealing and when not? But when you're stealing,
you're making more than a direct reference, so distinguishing what you mean
in this way seems a bit cumbersome.
> As I said earlier in this post, I don't believe ANY direct reference to
> another work is a good thing, and although there are some situations
> that legitimately demand it, they should always be minimized. The
> spectrum I described there basically ranges from when it is most
> forgiveable to when it isn't.
Okay. Much of this could have been minimized by not having contradicted
yourself earlier (likening what Xenogears did to the stealing of creative
ideas), which is where most of the dispute lied. And in contradicting
yourself over popularity and establishment--Or does that part merely refer
to the general masses (which I disagree with anyway)?
If you want to speak of situations where references are legitimately
necessary, in a factory where former humans are being turned into food and
being fed to the populace--whether their idea was inspired by the original
or not, don't you think they might have seen it necessary to acknowledge the
similarity between the two by referencing it? This is also under the
assumption that they see their audience as intelligent enough to pick up on
a possible influence (which I imagine they did, considering the dense nature
of many of their ideas).
John Cable
<d...@removeallexceptdanposluns.com> wrote:
>If I make a story where a car can travel through time, that's one thing.
>The idea has been used before, and hopefully I'm just using it as a
>vehicle to advance my story. But if it happens to be a DeLorean with a
>Flux Capacitor that needs to reach 88 mph in order to cross the
>time-travel threshold, then it's no longer just the idea I'm reusing;
>instead I'm making a direct reference to - you guessed it - Police
>Academy, and unless my story has already proven itself independently
>successful then I'm probably just trying to leech off of the success of
>their franchise. (Which is why I would be instantly sued by Warner
>Brothers, the producers of Police Academy.)
THAT'S MY FAVORITE TIME TRAVELING MOVIE
John Cable
wrote:
>"Dan Posluns" <d...@removeallexceptdanposluns.com> wrote in message
>news:dan-204366.1...@news.cogeco.ca...
But it's still a ripoff of Soylent Green.
Balthasar
"John Cable" <jcc...@comcast.hurfnet> wrote in message
Hardly. Unless you think an idea that bears a small similarity to another
must have come from that other idea, or that an idea that was inspired by
that of another--is ripping that other idea off. If so, I'm not sure how you
enjoy movies. Or anything from the Post-Modern era onward.
John Cable
wrote:
>"John Cable" <jcc...@comcast.hurfnet> wrote in message
>news:u4hd0vc1836ujo3qi...@4ax.com...
>> But it's still a ripoff of Soylent Green.
>
>Hardly. Unless you think an idea that bears a small similarity to another
>must have come from that other idea, or that an idea that was inspired by
>that of another--is ripping that other idea off. If so, I'm not sure how you
>enjoy movies. Or anything from the Post-Modern era onward.
I think that Xenogears sucks is why.
Balthasar
"John Cable" <jcc...@comcast.hurfnet> wrote in message
EENIE, MEENIE, MINEY, MOE
SUCK MY DICK AND SWALLOW SLOW
OOOOOOHHHHHHHHH!
Balthasar Dice Clay
John Cable
wrote:
>"John Cable" <jcc...@comcast.hurfnet> wrote in message
>news:srkd0vcr5djcbffu9...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 23 Dec 2002 03:57:45 -0500, "Balthasar" <kdj...@nyu.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >"John Cable" <jcc...@comcast.hurfnet> wrote in message
>> >news:u4hd0vc1836ujo3qi...@4ax.com...
>>
>> >> But it's still a ripoff of Soylent Green.
>> >
>> >Hardly. Unless you think an idea that bears a small similarity to another
>> >must have come from that other idea, or that an idea that was inspired by
>> >that of another--is ripping that other idea off. If so, I'm not sure how
>you
>> >enjoy movies. Or anything from the Post-Modern era onward.
>>
>> I think that Xenogears sucks is why.
>
>EENIE, MEENIE, MINEY, MOE
>SUCK MY DICK AND SWALLOW SLOW
>
>OOOOOOHHHHHHHHH!
LITTLE MISS MUFFET SAT ON HER TUFFET
EATING HER CURDS AND WHEY
ALONG CAME A SPIDER AND SAT DOWN BESIDE HER
HE SAID "EY, WUTS IN DA BOWL BITCH"
O!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
--
Nepchewn "John 'Creexul' Cable" Salad (AIM name: Jhoh Cable)
http://animehistory.keenspace.com
"I think there is a chance that the spread of Japanese animation
overseas might only lead to embarrassment."
- Hayao Miyazaki (obviously racist against anime! O_O!!!)
Dan Posluns
"Balthasar" <kdj...@nyu.edu> wrote:
> > > So you're saying the creaters of a series, such as the Final Fantasy
> > > series--because they have a popular series--would not feel the need to
> try
> > > to extend their reach of popularity by making a reference such as "my
> spidey
> > > sense is tingling," and instead would more likely reflect poor writing?
> > > Well, why would it be seen as poor writing if it doesn't reflect such an
> > > attempt?
> >
> > It might not be. Although it would certainly be uncharacteristic of a
> > Final Fantasy game, so it probably would be very inappropriate. This is
> > all hypothetical, of course.
>
> That wasn't the point. I think you're avoiding the question (note: I
> expected an answer based on the hypothetical, not what they really do).
I can't give you a hypothetical answer; it would depend entirely on the
game itself. In any FF game I've played, I certainly can't envision it
working. (Now that I think about it, there's actually an example in
existence, with the ill-chosen "Scotty, beam me up!" line in the
fan-translation of FF4).
In any case, I'm not avoiding the question. You asked why a reference
would seem like poor writing if it doesn't reflect an attempt to leech
popularity. My answer was that it wouldn't necessarily (and this is
because I feel there are certain situations that legitimately demand
pop-culture references), but in general they are inappropriate and bring
down the quality of writing. I've already explained my reasoning on that
elsewhere, and I doubt it merits repetition...
> > > > If, on the other hand, it's done by a game that has yet to amass such
> > > > popularity - such as the first game in a series (eg. Xenogears) - or a
> > > > game that is clearly half-assed in other respects, it can easily be
> > > > construed as trying to rip off the popularity of another series.
> > >
> > > Oh sure, one might have the ability to think that, but I don't see the
> point
> > > in your defending one's ability to make poor assumptions.
> >
> > I don't think it's a poor assumption; I think it happens that way an
> > awful lot.
>
> Just because it happens a lot doesn't make it a legitimate assumption. Part
> of your assumption seems to have been based upon the fact that you either
> hadn't played the game (at least up to that point), or didn't fully
> understand what was going on in that section onward (note: that was not a
> character attack).
I never said that Xenogears was doing it, I said it made them LOOK like
they were doing it. As I said later on, I don't happen to personally
think they were trying to leech off of the popularity of others. I just
think that whenever an unestablished story tries to "pay homage"
unnecessarily to another work, then despite their intentions they run
the risk of looking like they're trying to ride on the coattails of that
other work. So if, like I said, it's an unnecessary tribute, it always
makes for an unwise choice.
> > > So what do you call every Final Fantasy including a character named Cid?
> > > Leeching off their own success? I would bring up Kingdom Hearts, but
> > > considering the negative bias towards that game here, I can guess what a
> > > response to that would be.
> >
> > Having a Cid in every episode is a trademark of the series.
>
> Yeah, it's a trademark because they do it all the time. Would not leeching
> off one's success preceed something being established as a trademark (in
> this way)?
I imagine it could, and there's a good chance that in the case of Cid in
FF it did. I was thinking something similar.
> There's a
> > difference, although perhaps not such a big difference, as writers can
> > fall prey to the glorification of their own traditions as well (take the
> > major overdose of Chocobos in FF7). I haven't played Kingdom Hearts.
>
> Glorification, sure. But why? Is Cid a popular recurring charater? Are there
> not final fantasy fans (though probably a tad obsessed) that would be
> disappointed if Cid didn't surface in some way? Why does he need to keep
> showing up (that is, is it necessary in any way)? What if one of the
> creators of Final Fantasy made the claim that Cid's constant reappearance is
> homage to some character named Cid from a book he read a lot as a kid? Would
> it make it any worse?
The nature of a series trademark is an entirely different beast... the
whole set of in-jokes, running gags, etc. within a series are well
beyond the scope of what we are discussing, and I feel best left out...
I'm sorry if this seems like I'm dodging it, but you've asked a lot of
questions and I feel it's a can of worms we can live without opening...
suffice it to say that the rules change slightly when you're referencing
something within your own series.
> > > Carbonite freezing. Maybe you weren't paying enough attention to the
> debate
> > > you entered.
> >
> > I was referring to your argument about unoriginality in Star Wars, not
> > the carbon freezing. Spare me your character attacks; they don't make
> > you look any smarter.
>
> It wasn't a character attack. Where you stepped in was a debate about
> whether two instances I labeled as "homages" were in fact that. One of them
> refered to carbonite freezing. That's why I said you might not have been
> paying enough attention. You are very defensive.
I am simply responding in kind. "Maybe you weren't paying enough
attention to the debate you entered" is an attack on me, not my
arguments, no matter which way you slice it.
> > > So your issue is mainly the idea that something which has yet to be
> popular
> > > making references to things which may or may not yet be popular (btw,
> > > Soylent Green is not as well known a movie as you would think, probably
> less
> > > well known in Japan)? What about art pieces that parody pop culture?
> > > Movies, for example (I'm sure you can think of a few in recent years
> that
> > > have done this)? Is there any difference there?
> >
> > Yes, the difference is that one is parodying, and the other is not.
>
> Why is that more acceptable? Does good parody not create an individual,
> original work?
Yes, and that work is a parody, a very specific genre. We've been
discussing stories from games such as FF and Xenogears, neither of which
are parodies, but are instead simple narratives. The same guidelines
aren't going to apply universally.
> > > > > > > What about the scene in question made it a cruch to the story?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't happen to think it was... but one could argue otherwise.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't see how.
> > > >
> > > > Then use your imagination.
> > >
> > > I was being facetious.
> >
> > Then you can provide an example that you deem as satisfactory, since you
> > didn't like mine.
>
> A satisfactory argument against my claims? Why would I want to do that? And
> I said I was being facetious, unless you are refering to something else I
> said.
Allow me to clarify: I am not going to argue as to whether the reference
to Soylent Green was a crutch or not. I am simply stating that the
argument could be made, and if you choose to disagree then that's fine,
but it's not something I'm about to champion.
> > <snip opinions on the example resolution>
> >
> > > You can argue whatever side you want; I don't
> > > > really care. My only point is that both sides have merit and can be
> > > > argued for or against.
> > >
> > > My point is the side you argue for is somewhat uninformed and has a lot
> less
> > > merit than you think.
> >
> > I'm not arguing for either side of it. All I did was give you the
> > resolution as an example of how the crutch argument could be made. I'm
> > not interested in it. My opinion doesn't really fall on either side of
> > it, anyway.
>
> Well, then you defended an argument that I see as weaker (and argued as
> such). Why you went on and on about delorians and such if you didn't see
> that particular example as being related to xenogears (and you actually
> argued it was, when I said it had nothing to do with xenogears, thus
> contradicting your claim that you had no argument for either side) is beyond
> me.
Hopefully for the last time: I'm not defending the argument. I was just
presenting it to you as an example, since you said you couldn't see how
the argument could be made. OK?
The example about the Delorean time-machine in an otherwise original
story relates directly to Xenogears as a PARALLEL to the Soylent Systems
in an otherwise original story, which I thought I made clear. There was
obviously no Delorean in Xenogears.
> > > Yet, you strangely ignore the fact that not only was the Soylent System
> > > /not/ Soylent Green, but that it was actually important to the plot of
> the
> > > game. The requirement of being popular in order to make a pop culture
> > > reference seems just as weak as what I believed you were previously
> arguing
> > > for (the ability to borrow ideas because your work is popular). And most
> of
> > > your examples of what you call "direct referencing" and distinguish from
> > > "stealing," I would say are in fact actually examples of outright
> stealing,
> > > rather than just taking a piece of an idea (such as the one later on in
> the
> > > post, with the time travel).
> >
> > I'm not ignoring it, it simply isn't relevant to my argument.
>
> It is if you claim that the example I refered to earlier in this post is
> somehow related (exactly related, to be specific) to Xenogears use of the
> word "Soylent" in the Soylent System.
It's a parallel to what Xenogears does; that's all. I said it RELATES
exactly to Xenogears, not that it WAS exactly in Xenogears.
> And I've
> > never said that you need to be popular in order to make a pop-culture
> > reference. What I said is that referencing other people's work in what's
> > supposed to be an original story is often an attempt to leech off of the
> > success of that other work. It follows, however, that this is less
> > likely to be the case if the franchise making the reference is already
> > successful.
>
> You didn't say it was /less/ likely to happen if the work is popular. I'll
> quote: "When an independently successful and superior story decides to
> include an offhand reference to someone else's work, I consider it to be
> paying homage." Big difference. And much of this debate has been predicated
> on that comment. Also: "while it may constitute extremely poor writing it
> doesn't necessarily reflect an attempt to leech off the popularity of the
> Spider Man franchise..." and here's the important part: "/since/ the series
> already has its own popularity." When I spoke of a "requirement" to make pop
> culture references, I meant that it's a requirement to make those comments
> safely, that is, without undue criticism.
"Paying homage" was a poor choice of words on my part, which I made
since I was attempting to fit the criteria being discussed. What I meant
to do was contrast poor writing and ripping off from just poor writing.
> > That doesn't mean it's inherently right, or wrong, or good, or bad, or
> > anything. I'm not distinguishing direct referencing from stealing. The
> > key word was "ideas", not "stealing".
>
> But you need to, because your argument is very unclear otherwise. When your
> examples of direct referencing are blatent examples of lifting the ideas of
> another, there's no way to find such a thing acceptable, and of course would
> then make you automatically right when you compare the situation(s) in
> question
I can't distinguish direct referencing perfectly from stealing because
they aren't mutually exclusive. Furthermore, as I've already said, it's
not what I've been trying to do.
> > And any use of the word "Soylent" to describe a system that turns people
> > into food is clearly a reference to Soylent Green.
>
> I didn't say it wasn't. I said the Soylent System actually bears little
> resemblence to Soylent Green. "Little," being the key word. I did explain
> what exactly the Soylent System was (well, not totally, but good enough for
> this).
OK, I took it as an implication that they perhaps weren't. My response
to what you've just said is that the size of the reference doesn't
excuse it from occurring; once you've referred to another person's work,
you've referred to it. In the case of Soylent Systems, it's good that it
was only a passing reference, but it's also one that shouldn't have been
made in the first place.
<snip some stuff about semantics that are pretty trivial>
> > > I figured you would say that. Which sorta makes the argument circular,
> > > considering it was established previously that such references are only
> okay
> > > when the reference itself is not an important part of the plot and is
> more
> > > "passing" than anything. So which is it? Does such a reference need to
> be
> > > important to the plot, or doesn't it?
> >
> > In my opinion, any direct reference of another unrelated work in a story
> > that's supposed to be original usually weakens it, regardless of whether
> > or not it's important to the plot.
>
> You're dodging the question. Regardless, you've changed your argument enough
> that it can't really be disputed that way. Now it's just a matter of taste.
I'm not dodging it, I replied to it in two paragraphs. That was the
first half of my answer, the second half is in the paragraph below.
> > If you've got to make a reference, though, a passing reference will
> > almost always be the lesser of evils, by the virtue of there being less
> > of it.
>
> It was passing in name, though I don't know how many times they actually
> said "soylent." I think for the most part they just refered to it as
> Krelian's Lab.
I agree; it was only a passing reference, and the lesser of evils as
such. I just think it was completely unnecessary, and shouldn't have
been made for that reason.
> > > But if they're borrowing the actual idea, what difference does it make?
> Does
> > > not the success of the idea have anything to do with the /idea/ itself?
> The
> > > distinctions you make here are a bit confusing.
> >
> > The difference is in evidence and even self-admission of plagiarism.
>
> So they only lose credibility if they phrase the idea the same as the
> originator of the idea? Regardless of how obvious it is that it's still the
> same idea?
I didn't say that. Passing a value judgement on one thing doesn't mean
I'm passing the opposite value judgement on everything else. Ripping
something off without saying who it's from and ripping off while making
a direct reference is still ripping off, whether or not you've admitted
it to yourself and the world.
> > Which isn't a value judgement, and it doesn't mean I condone ripping off
> > ideas. If you ask me, the Breene (sp?) from the later incarnations of
> > Star Trek are a huge rip-off of Boba Fett from Star Wars. But calling
> > them Breene instead of Bobas makes the difference between it just
> > seeming really unoriginal and Lucas suing their pants off.
>
> So possible legal action is what distingusishes them?
No, possible legal action just a possible outcome. What distinguishes
them is the admission of unoriginality.
As an example of what I'm saying, I used to have a shareware game for
the Mac that was based on the Star Trek universe. Paramount got in a
huff and their lawyers sent them a letter; the next release had "Kigons"
instead of "Klingons", "The Cube Ship" instead of "The Borg", etc. They
evaded the potential for litigation, but from a literary standpoint they
were still making a direct reference to Star Trek.
> > Copying an idea can be good or bad, depending on how it is implemented.
> > I don't begrudge Xenogears for the Soylent Systems themselves; take away
> > the title, and as you pointed out, it's not even obvious that they got
> > the idea from Soylent Green. Making a direct reference to another work
> > almost always weakens an original work, however, and should be kept to a
> > minimum. In XG, the direct reference to Soylent Green was completely
> > unnecessary and did not bring anything to the story.
>
> Okay, again, this is different from what was previously argued. This is also
> different from calling a time machine car a Delorian that is not the actual
> delorian. In this case, as I said before, it's really more a matter of taste
> than anything else. What you said there has nothing to do with popularity or
> being established.
Only because I don't happen to think that Xenogears is guilty of the
particular crime of leeching off of another work's success. The writers
should have taken that into consideration before making the unnecessary
reference, though.
> > My whole point is that it doesn't matter whether or not they were
> > stealing the idea. Stealing the idea doesn't factor into it. The second
> > they mentioned "Soylent" instead of giving it their own name or none at
> > all, their credibility went down the tubes. Even if their implementation
> > was completely original and inspired, they were reduced to mere hacks by
> > virtue of not coming up with their own material.
>
> But, they did come up with their own material. What they did was use the
> name of something else that has already existed. It's probably not even a
> copyrighted word, for reasons I haven't figured out yet, because if it was,
> Square would have been sued for what they did (at least, I'm pretty sure
> they would have).
They came up with plenty of their own material. But they also directly
used someone else's material. Whether or not it was legal for them to do
so or if they got sued doesn't change that.
> Personally, I think taking someone else's ideas and not
> doing anything new or significantly different with it rubs people the wrong
> way a lot more then simply using the same name (as usually, when I find
> usage of same-name bothers people, it is also followed by the idea it was
> originally attached to).
The problem is that someone can more-or-less copy an idea and still
claim it as being original... even if it's a total lie, there is
reasonable doubt as to where the idea came from. The moment you
reference someone else's work, however, even if it's only a passing
reference, it's a straight-away admission that you prefer their stuff to
your own and aren't creative enough to come up with something different.
> > I provided that statement as an example of the opposing end of a
> > spectrum. If you'll recall, at the other end was a story making a
> > passing reference that can stand on its own and had no use for borrowing
> > the popularity of another story.
>
> Which I would liken a lot more to the Xenogears example--however, you
> likened Xenogears to an example of outright stealing of creative property.
> This is where any possible confusion lies, especially if you're trying to
> say Xenogears did not do this (outright steal ideas).
Whether or not Xenogears stole anything has no bearing on the fact that
an uncalled-for reference was made.
> What perhaps wasn't clear is that at
> > both ends of the spectrum, I intended for it to mean making a DIRECT
> > reference, not just borrowing (or stealing) an idea. That is integral to
> > my meaning.
>
> Eh? Direct reference when stealing and when not? But when you're stealing,
> you're making more than a direct reference, so distinguishing what you mean
> in this way seems a bit cumbersome.
The spectrum did not specify stealing at one end and not stealing at the
other end. Stealing is irrelevant. I didn't even mention it at either
end.
The difference between one end and the other is the amount of and
importance devoted to the reference, the ability of the story/game to
stand on its own, and any history of success for the series.
> > As I said earlier in this post, I don't believe ANY direct reference to
> > another work is a good thing, and although there are some situations
> > that legitimately demand it, they should always be minimized. The
> > spectrum I described there basically ranges from when it is most
> > forgiveable to when it isn't.
>
> Okay. Much of this could have been minimized by not having contradicted
> yourself earlier (likening what Xenogears did to the stealing of creative
> ideas), which is where most of the dispute lied. And in contradicting
> yourself over popularity and establishment--Or does that part merely refer
> to the general masses (which I disagree with anyway)?
FWIW, Xenogears DID steal the name "Soylent". Theft on some level is
pretty much a given whenever you make a direct reference to someone
else's work. But please don't attach any undue meaning to that, as a
direct reference can STILL be justified and even required by the nature
of the text. It's still a form of theft, though.
The only thing that popularity affects is the perception (by the masses,
I suppose) of the writer attempting to leech off of the popularity of
something that is already successful.
> If you want to speak of situations where references are legitimately
> necessary, in a factory where former humans are being turned into food and
> being fed to the populace--whether their idea was inspired by the original
> or not, don't you think they might have seen it necessary to acknowledge the
> similarity between the two by referencing it? This is also under the
> assumption that they see their audience as intelligent enough to pick up on
> a possible influence (which I imagine they did, considering the dense nature
> of many of their ideas).
They might have seen it that way, but I don't believe that justifies it.
Referencing something unoriginal because you think people will catch on
to your unoriginality is an end-of-pipe solution for not coming up with
something original in the first place. Either you're confident in your
writing (even if it does bear some resemblance to other works) or you're
not.
J.C. Cawley
I have only one comment to add to this debate.
[SPOILER SPACE]
...
...
########## ## #### ########
##**********######&&## ## ####&&&&####********##
##**##########****####&&##&&####&&&&####****########**##
###### ##&&##******##&&&&##&&####******##&&&&###### ##
##OOOO######&&&&****####&&&&&&####****##&&####OOOOOO####OO##
####OO####OOOO##########&&OOOO&&&&&&&&####OOOOOOOO######OOOO##
##OOOO## ####OOOOOOOO&&####&&OOOO&&####&&OO######&&&&######
##########&&&&######&&&&##**##OOOO##**##&&##&&&&######&&##**##
##**##&&&&&&####OOOOOO##OO######&&&&####OO&&##OOOOOO########**##
##**##########OOOOOOOO&&##OOOOOOOOOO&&&&&&##OOOOOOOOOO&&******##
##**######OOOOOOOOOO&&&&&&##**&&OOOO&&**##&&&&OO&&&&OOOOOO**##
##**##OOOOOO&&&&&&&&OO&&&&&&####&&&&####&&&&&&&&##&&&&OO####
##******OOOO########&&&&&&&&&&########&&OO&&&&######OOOO##
##**&&OO&&## ##&&&&&&OOOOOO****OOOOOO&&## ##OOOO##
##OOOO&&## ##&&OOOOOOOO**OOOOOOOO## ##&&OO##
##OOOOOO## ##OO&&&&&&**&&&&OO&&## ##&&OO##
##OOOO## ####&&&&OOOO&&**&&&&&&#### ##&&OO##
##OO&&## ##OOOO&&&&&&OO&&OOOOOOOO&&OO#### ##&&&&##
##&&&&## ##OOOOOOOO&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&OOOOOOOO####&&OO##
##OO## ##OOOO&&########&&&&&&########OOOO## ##&&OO##
##OO## ##&&&&&&#### ##&&## ##&&OOOO## ##&&OO##
##OO## ##OOOO&&&&####OO######&&&&&&## ##&&OO##
##OOOO## ######OOOO##OO##OO&&&&#### ##&&OO##
##&&OOOO## ##OOOO&&##OO##OOOO## ########OOOO##
##OO&&OOOOOO#### ##OOOO####OO####OOOO## ##OOOOOOOOOO##
##OOOOOO####OOOO####OOOO####OO####OOOO####OO####OOOOOO##
##OO&&OO## ####**####OOOO##OO####OOOO##**## ##OOOO##
##&&OO## ##**####OOOO####OO##OO####**####OOOO&&##
##OOOO## ##OO## ##OO##OO## ## ##OO&&OO##
##OO## ##****####&&&&##****######OO&&OO##
##**## ##**####&&&&## ##**##****##**##
##**## ##&&&&#### ## ####**##
## #### ##
*CASTS RUB ON BALTHASAR*
-A-
Balthasar
<Snip>
> > > > > If, on the other hand, it's done by a game that has yet to amass
such
> > > > > popularity - such as the first game in a series (eg. Xenogears) -
or a
> > > > > game that is clearly half-assed in other respects, it can easily
be
> > > > > construed as trying to rip off the popularity of another series.
> > > >
> > > > Oh sure, one might have the ability to think that, but I don't see
the
> > point
> > > > in your defending one's ability to make poor assumptions.
> > >
> > > I don't think it's a poor assumption; I think it happens that way an
> > > awful lot.
> >
> > Just because it happens a lot doesn't make it a legitimate assumption.
Part
> > of your assumption seems to have been based upon the fact that you
either
> > hadn't played the game (at least up to that point), or didn't fully
> > understand what was going on in that section onward (note: that was not
a
> > character attack).
>
> I never said that Xenogears was doing it, I said it made them LOOK like
> they were doing it.
I didn't say you said they were doing it there. I said you made comments
that made it seem like you didn't fully understand what was going on in that
part of the story. Quote: "If, as you say, the Soylent Systems were so
different from Soylent Green, then why name them Soylent Systems?" That
didn't seem like a necessary question to ask if you were somewhat confident
in your knowledge of the scene(s) is question. The assumption I claimed you
made was that one could validly say the part(s) of the game involving the
Soylent System were an attempt by the creators to "rip off the popularity"
of Soylent Green. If one understands what the Soylent System is, I don't see
how one can /validly/ make such an assumption. I also did point out at some
point that this is in fact a Japanese made game, released in Japan first.
You assumption seemed to be very western-centric.
As I said later on, I don't happen to personally
> think they were trying to leech off of the popularity of others. I just
> think that whenever an unestablished story tries to "pay homage"
> unnecessarily to another work, then despite their intentions they run
> the risk of looking like they're trying to ride on the coattails of that
> other work. So if, like I said, it's an unnecessary tribute, it always
> makes for an unwise choice.
Sure, I think we can both agree that it's always a risk. But that's not the
same as saying it was a valid assumption in that case, unless you're going
to assume that everyone stopped playing when they reached the factory/lab.
<<Snip>>
> > > > Carbonite freezing. Maybe you weren't paying enough attention to the
> > debate
> > > > you entered.
> > >
> > > I was referring to your argument about unoriginality in Star Wars, not
> > > the carbon freezing. Spare me your character attacks; they don't make
> > > you look any smarter.
> >
> > It wasn't a character attack. Where you stepped in was a debate about
> > whether two instances I labeled as "homages" were in fact that. One of
them
> > refered to carbonite freezing. That's why I said you might not have been
> > paying enough attention. You are very defensive.
>
> I am simply responding in kind. "Maybe you weren't paying enough
> attention to the debate you entered" is an attack on me, not my
> arguments, no matter which way you slice it.
It wasn't an attack at all. You didn't see how my comment about Star Wars
was connected to the discussion of Xenogears, which would indicate you
weren't paying attention to the previous portion of the discussion that made
reference to the carbonite freezing scene. So, my assumption is maybe you
weren't paying enough attention. If you want to feel insulted by that,
there's nothing I can do.
> > > > So your issue is mainly the idea that something which has yet to be
> > popular
> > > > making references to things which may or may not yet be popular
(btw,
> > > > Soylent Green is not as well known a movie as you would think,
probably
> > less
> > > > well known in Japan)? What about art pieces that parody pop
culture?
> > > > Movies, for example (I'm sure you can think of a few in recent years
> > that
> > > > have done this)? Is there any difference there?
> > >
> > > Yes, the difference is that one is parodying, and the other is not.
> >
> > Why is that more acceptable? Does good parody not create an individual,
> > original work?
>
> Yes, and that work is a parody, a very specific genre.
Yes, but that wasn't the question. I know what parody is. I asked, why is
what parody does more acceptable, considering the way in which parody
creates its material. Pastiche, even. Saying they are separate and therefore
different doesn't explain why they are separate and therefore different.
We've been
> discussing stories from games such as FF and Xenogears, neither of which
> are parodies, but are instead simple narratives. The same guidelines
> aren't going to apply universally.
I'm not talking about the guidelines to comedy. Are you implying that parody
cannot occur in science fiction? That it's only context is comedy?
> > > > > > > > What about the scene in question made it a cruch to the
story?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't happen to think it was... but one could argue
otherwise.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't see how.
> > > > >
> > > > > Then use your imagination.
> > > >
> > > > I was being facetious.
> > >
> > > Then you can provide an example that you deem as satisfactory, since
you
> > > didn't like mine.
> >
> > A satisfactory argument against my claims? Why would I want to do that?
And
> > I said I was being facetious, unless you are refering to something else
I
> > said.
>
> Allow me to clarify: I am not going to argue as to whether the reference
> to Soylent Green was a crutch or not. I am simply stating that the
> argument could be made, and if you choose to disagree then that's fine,
> but it's not something I'm about to champion.
I said I was kidding--being facetious. I wasn't arguing there that an
argument against it can't be made. I wasn't arguing anything there.
Facetious.
> > > <snip opinions on the example resolution>
> > >
> > > > You can argue whatever side you want; I don't
> > > > > really care. My only point is that both sides have merit and can
be
> > > > > argued for or against.
> > > >
> > > > My point is the side you argue for is somewhat uninformed and has a
lot
> > less
> > > > merit than you think.
> > >
> > > I'm not arguing for either side of it. All I did was give you the
> > > resolution as an example of how the crutch argument could be made. I'm
> > > not interested in it. My opinion doesn't really fall on either side of
> > > it, anyway.
> >
> > Well, then you defended an argument that I see as weaker (and argued as
> > such). Why you went on and on about delorians and such if you didn't see
> > that particular example as being related to xenogears (and you actually
> > argued it was, when I said it had nothing to do with xenogears, thus
> > contradicting your claim that you had no argument for either side) is
beyond
> > me.
>
> Hopefully for the last time: I'm not defending the argument.
You don't have to agree with something to defend it. It's called playing
devil's advocate.
I was just
> presenting it to you as an example, since you said you couldn't see how
> the argument could be made. OK?
Well, I thought I made it clear...nevermind.
> The example about the Delorean time-machine in an otherwise original
> story relates directly to Xenogears as a PARALLEL to the Soylent Systems
> in an otherwise original story, which I thought I made clear. There was
> obviously no Delorean in Xenogears.
I didn't say you meant they were related in a way that had an actual
Delorean in Xenogears. Your example of the two time travel stories had one
story, Back To The Future, with their Delorian, and another story, which,
though the plot may be nothing like BTTF, had a time travel car called the
Delorian, which performed in exactly the same way as the Delorian. No such
direct parallel exists between Soylent Green and the Soylent System: the
only similarity is the use of the word "soylent" and the fact that the food
made was, at /some/ point, a human (but at production, was not).
I think I've made what I was saying as clear as possible. Why you would
think that I think you said there was a time-travel car in Xenogears is
beyond me.
What you should have done was made it more clear that you were making a
claim on something slightly different than what was being discussed, rather
than trying to fit it within the context. That's actually a much simpler
discussion than what has happened.
> > > That doesn't mean it's inherently right, or wrong, or good, or bad, or
> > > anything. I'm not distinguishing direct referencing from stealing. The
> > > key word was "ideas", not "stealing".
> >
> > But you need to, because your argument is very unclear otherwise. When
your
> > examples of direct referencing are blatent examples of lifting the ideas
of
> > another, there's no way to find such a thing acceptable, and of course
would
> > then make you automatically right when you compare the situation(s) in
> > question
>
> I can't distinguish direct referencing perfectly from stealing because
> they aren't mutually exclusive. Furthermore, as I've already said, it's
> not what I've been trying to do.
I know /now/ you aren't talking about stealing, but it still needs to be
distinguished for the reason I stated above. Direct referencing will always
look as bad as you peg it if it is alligned with theft. And again I ask (in
case you don't answer it earlier in the post): why is parody okay (that is,
not theft), when the essense of parody is based in using the material of
others? I'm sure actual direct referencing (I'm using it to mean "name
using" instead of "name and idea using") occurs in works of parody pretty
often.
> > > And any use of the word "Soylent" to describe a system that turns
people
> > > into food is clearly a reference to Soylent Green.
> >
> > I didn't say it wasn't. I said the Soylent System actually bears little
> > resemblence to Soylent Green. "Little," being the key word. I did
explain
> > what exactly the Soylent System was (well, not totally, but good enough
for
> > this).
>
> OK, I took it as an implication that they perhaps weren't. My response
> to what you've just said is that the size of the reference doesn't
> excuse it from occurring; once you've referred to another person's work,
> you've referred to it.
Never denied that fact. If you recall, I called it an homage.
In the case of Soylent Systems, it's good that it
> was only a passing reference, but it's also one that shouldn't have been
> made in the first place.
Well, that can be argued elsewhere in the post.
The problem here is that what was being distinguished before was between
homage and a reference big enough to make a significant impact on the plot.
Like the carbonite freezing scene--could you have merely called what they
did to him something else and not change the events surrounding it? I'm not
actually asking you to answer that, but the argument you present now doesn't
relate to such a situation in the same way, as it has less to do with
leeching popularity of something and more to do with the theft of creative
properties. There was another part of the question, which I'll clarify
below.
> > It was passing in name, though I don't know how many times they actually
> > said "soylent." I think for the most part they just refered to it as
> > Krelian's Lab.
>
> I agree; it was only a passing reference, and the lesser of evils as
> such. I just think it was completely unnecessary, and shouldn't have
> been made for that reason.
And that's the other part of my question earlier. When a reference is
passing, when is it ever /really/ necessary? When is homage necessary? Or
are you trying to argue against ever paying homage to anything in artistic
works (specifically, videogames)? Part of that distinction being made was
whether the scene (carbonite) was necessary (in order to determine it's
importance, and thus, theft of ideas, etc.).
> > > > But if they're borrowing the actual idea, what difference does it
make?
> > Does
> > > > not the success of the idea have anything to do with the /idea/
itself?
> > The
> > > > distinctions you make here are a bit confusing.
> > >
> > > The difference is in evidence and even self-admission of plagiarism.
> >
> > So they only lose credibility if they phrase the idea the same as the
> > originator of the idea? Regardless of how obvious it is that it's still
the
> > same idea?
>
> I didn't say that. Passing a value judgement on one thing doesn't mean
> I'm passing the opposite value judgement on everything else. Ripping
> something off without saying who it's from and ripping off while making
> a direct reference is still ripping off, whether or not you've admitted
> it to yourself and the world.
I'm aware that you understand that, but that's not what I'm getting at. Are
you saying the perception is only negative when the audience has an admition
from the creator (writer, director, whatever) in the form of using a name
that connects the idea to it's originator? To make it more clear, my
contention is that I would think one's reaction is more negative when they
see the idea of someone else in the exact form in another's work (in a way
that is not original), maybe more so when they try to call it something
else, as if they came up with the idea in the first place.
> > > Which isn't a value judgement, and it doesn't mean I condone ripping
off
> > > ideas. If you ask me, the Breene (sp?) from the later incarnations of
> > > Star Trek are a huge rip-off of Boba Fett from Star Wars. But calling
> > > them Breene instead of Bobas makes the difference between it just
> > > seeming really unoriginal and Lucas suing their pants off.
> >
> > So possible legal action is what distingusishes them?
>
> No, possible legal action just a possible outcome. What distinguishes
> them is the admission of unoriginality.
If its admission, then, I would say it's a lot more perceptual than just
using the correct nouns. I'll explain after your example.
> As an example of what I'm saying, I used to have a shareware game for
> the Mac that was based on the Star Trek universe. Paramount got in a
> huff and their lawyers sent them a letter; the next release had "Kigons"
> instead of "Klingons", "The Cube Ship" instead of "The Borg", etc. They
> evaded the potential for litigation, but from a literary standpoint they
> were still making a direct reference to Star Trek.
To me, renaming those things in that way was a clear admission that it was
still Star Trek, because what they called them was a direct reference to the
/ideas/ behind them, not necessarily what they were really called. The
kigon-klingon thing isn't a great example for me because I haven't played
this, but I imagine these "kigons" looked and acted a lot like klingons. The
"Cube Ship" is a lot more obvious, if you know anything about the Borg. If
they attactched those names to something with completely unrelated ideas,
you would have never tried to make that connection--if you actually played
the game, anyway--if you've got star trek on the brain, you might see
everything as being related to it, which still proves my point, I think
(because you would be looking for a connection in the ideas more than
anything).
<<Snipped>>
> > > My whole point is that it doesn't matter whether or not they were
> > > stealing the idea. Stealing the idea doesn't factor into it. The
second
> > > they mentioned "Soylent" instead of giving it their own name or none
at
> > > all, their credibility went down the tubes. Even if their
implementation
> > > was completely original and inspired, they were reduced to mere hacks
by
> > > virtue of not coming up with their own material.
> >
> > But, they did come up with their own material. What they did was use the
> > name of something else that has already existed. It's probably not even
a
> > copyrighted word, for reasons I haven't figured out yet, because if it
was,
> > Square would have been sued for what they did (at least, I'm pretty sure
> > they would have).
>
> They came up with plenty of their own material. But they also directly
> used someone else's material. Whether or not it was legal for them to do
> so or if they got sued doesn't change that.
I honestly don't see the name reference as having this effect (of affecting
their credibility) because it wasn't really attached to the Soylent Green
idea. I would think this situation would only be more likely in the case of
someone not understanding what was going on (which wouldn't be so
surprising, considering how dense the plot got after a while).
> > Personally, I think taking someone else's ideas and not
> > doing anything new or significantly different with it rubs people the
wrong
> > way a lot more then simply using the same name (as usually, when I find
> > usage of same-name bothers people, it is also followed by the idea it
was
> > originally attached to).
>
> The problem is that someone can more-or-less copy an idea and still
> claim it as being original... even if it's a total lie, there is
> reasonable doubt as to where the idea came from. The moment you
> reference someone else's work, however, even if it's only a passing
> reference, it's a straight-away admission that you prefer their stuff to
> your own and aren't creative enough to come up with something different.
I think the sort of assumption you are referring to is more of a face value
assumption than one that comes after-the-fact.
> > > I provided that statement as an example of the opposing end of a
> > > spectrum. If you'll recall, at the other end was a story making a
> > > passing reference that can stand on its own and had no use for
borrowing
> > > the popularity of another story.
> >
> > Which I would liken a lot more to the Xenogears example--however, you
> > likened Xenogears to an example of outright stealing of creative
property.
> > This is where any possible confusion lies, especially if you're trying
to
> > say Xenogears did not do this (outright steal ideas).
>
> Whether or not Xenogears stole anything has no bearing on the fact that
> an uncalled-for reference was made.
When is homage ever called for?
> > What perhaps wasn't clear is that at
> > > both ends of the spectrum, I intended for it to mean making a DIRECT
> > > reference, not just borrowing (or stealing) an idea. That is integral
to
> > > my meaning.
> >
> > Eh? Direct reference when stealing and when not? But when you're
stealing,
> > you're making more than a direct reference, so distinguishing what you
mean
> > in this way seems a bit cumbersome.
>
> The spectrum did not specify stealing at one end and not stealing at the
> other end. Stealing is irrelevant. I didn't even mention it at either
> end.
>
> The difference between one end and the other is the amount of and
> importance devoted to the reference, the ability of the story/game to
> stand on its own, and any history of success for the series.
I still fail to see where history of success plays any importance,
especially in an age where sequels are looked at with a very cynical eye (if
we're just talking about the /perception/ of one trying to ride the
coattails of another's success).
> > > As I said earlier in this post, I don't believe ANY direct reference
to
> > > another work is a good thing, and although there are some situations
> > > that legitimately demand it, they should always be minimized. The
> > > spectrum I described there basically ranges from when it is most
> > > forgiveable to when it isn't.
> >
> > Okay. Much of this could have been minimized by not having contradicted
> > yourself earlier (likening what Xenogears did to the stealing of
creative
> > ideas), which is where most of the dispute lied. And in contradicting
> > yourself over popularity and establishment--Or does that part merely
refer
> > to the general masses (which I disagree with anyway)?
>
> FWIW, Xenogears DID steal the name "Soylent".
Soylent as a name, not as an idea. It probably has a meaning all it's own,
but I've never seen it. Regardless, the idea was not taken, which is the
contention.
Theft on some level is
> pretty much a given whenever you make a direct reference to someone else's
work.
Which is why (again) I point to something like parody, which is not
considered theft, yet is rooted in such "direct references."
But please don't attach any undue meaning to that, as a
> direct reference can STILL be justified and even required by the nature
> of the text. It's still a form of theft, though.
If you want to use a word like "theft" for what we're talking about, this is
going to end up spiraling into the "can anything possibly be original
anymore" debate. Theft carries a much different meaning than "borrowing."
> The only thing that popularity affects is the perception (by the masses,
> I suppose) of the writer attempting to leech off of the popularity of
> something that is already successful.
Which I also disagree with, for reasons noted earlier.
> > If you want to speak of situations where references are legitimately
> > necessary, in a factory where former humans are being turned into food
and
> > being fed to the populace--whether their idea was inspired by the
original
> > or not, don't you think they might have seen it necessary to acknowledge
the
> > similarity between the two by referencing it? This is also under the
> > assumption that they see their audience as intelligent enough to pick up
on
> > a possible influence (which I imagine they did, considering the dense
nature
> > of many of their ideas).
>
> They might have seen it that way, but I don't believe that justifies it.
> Referencing something unoriginal because you think people will catch on
> to your unoriginality
Well, here's the other kicker, and where many of my assuptions of your
argument come from. You directly say here that the idea is unoriginal--so
are you then saying that it comes from the Soylent Green idea (as in, it
/is/ the SG idea)? Or is unoriginal to you the only word to describe
something which is not similar to anything else in existance?
is an end-of-pipe solution for not coming up with
> something original in the first place. Either you're confident in your
> writing (even if it does bear some resemblance to other works) or you're
> not.
Considering the facts, I would see the idea as original, but that depends on
your definition of original.
Dan Posluns
branch I've snipped, I think you can forgive me for it...
In article <1JNN9.196$zu2....@typhoon.nyu.edu>,
"Balthasar" <kdj...@nyu.edu> wrote:
> > I never said that Xenogears was doing it, I said it made them LOOK like
> > they were doing it.
>
> I didn't say you said they were doing it there. I said you made comments
> that made it seem like you didn't fully understand what was going on in that
> part of the story. Quote: "If, as you say, the Soylent Systems were so
> different from Soylent Green, then why name them Soylent Systems?" That
> didn't seem like a necessary question to ask if you were somewhat confident
> in your knowledge of the scene(s) is question. The assumption I claimed you
> made was that one could validly say the part(s) of the game involving the
> Soylent System were an attempt by the creators to "rip off the popularity"
> of Soylent Green. If one understands what the Soylent System is, I don't see
> how one can /validly/ make such an assumption. I also did point out at some
> point that this is in fact a Japanese made game, released in Japan first.
> You assumption seemed to be very western-centric.
You've attached an awful lot of meaning to the question that wasn't
there. The question is very simple and is as it stands: if they've come
up with their own material, for what possible reason could they want to
give it a name that makes people compare it to someone else's work? And
it IS a very necessary question to ask (for socratic purposes, anyway).
> > Yes, and that work is a parody, a very specific genre.
>
> Yes, but that wasn't the question. I know what parody is. I asked, why is
> what parody does more acceptable, considering the way in which parody
> creates its material. Pastiche, even. Saying they are separate and therefore
> different doesn't explain why they are separate and therefore different.
>
> We've been
> > discussing stories from games such as FF and Xenogears, neither of which
> > are parodies, but are instead simple narratives. The same guidelines
> > aren't going to apply universally.
>
> I'm not talking about the guidelines to comedy. Are you implying that parody
> cannot occur in science fiction? That it's only context is comedy?
I didn't even use the word "comedy" in either of the above paragraphs.
This has degenerated badly. Parody is simply a different type of writing
altogether, one that hinges fundamentally on making reference to other
works. It's different from the general making references in other types
of writing the same way that making references to predecessors from
within a series is different (such as the Cid example).
I'm certain you can continue to think up genres and styles that take
exception to the general rules of good writing style. But the Xenogears
example of Soylent Systems and Carbonite is not a parody, nor is it
pastiche, nor is it referring to something within its own series, and
neither is the overwhelming majority of narratives out there. I'm not
going to waste time trying to define the rules by listing all of the
exceptions.
> I didn't say you meant they were related in a way that had an actual
> Delorean in Xenogears. Your example of the two time travel stories had one
> story, Back To The Future, with their Delorian, and another story, which,
> though the plot may be nothing like BTTF, had a time travel car called the
> Delorian, which performed in exactly the same way as the Delorian. No such
> direct parallel exists between Soylent Green and the Soylent System: the
> only similarity is the use of the word "soylent" and the fact that the food
> made was, at /some/ point, a human (but at production, was not).
It absolutely is a direct parallel. My time-travelling car DOESN'T have
to perform exactly the same way as the DeLorean. If it so much as IS a
DeLorean, the reference is obvious, the same way as with Soylent Systems.
> The problem here is that what was being distinguished before was between
> homage and a reference big enough to make a significant impact on the plot.
> Like the carbonite freezing scene--could you have merely called what they
> did to him something else and not change the events surrounding it? I'm not
> actually asking you to answer that, but the argument you present now doesn't
> relate to such a situation in the same way, as it has less to do with
> leeching popularity of something and more to do with the theft of creative
> properties. There was another part of the question, which I'll clarify
> below.
<snip>
> And that's the other part of my question earlier. When a reference is
> passing, when is it ever /really/ necessary? When is homage necessary? Or
> are you trying to argue against ever paying homage to anything in artistic
> works (specifically, videogames)? Part of that distinction being made was
> whether the scene (carbonite) was necessary (in order to determine it's
> importance, and thus, theft of ideas, etc.).
I can see a reference as being necessary when a story is situated from
within a certain pop-culture and, for realism's sake, needs to make a
reference to said pop-culture.
I haven't thought this through entirely, but I think an important part
of paying homage/tribute instead of just making a direct reference is
not claiming someone else's material as your own. In the case of
Xenogears, both Soylent and Carbonite Freezing were treated as an
original part of XG's story without acknowledging the source.
The Star Trek game I described in the previous message, OTOH, clearly
acknowledged itself as being a game taking place in the Star Trek
universe. Another example I can think of would be the Douglas Adams
novel, Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency, the plot of which
revolves around direct references to the hallucinogen-inspired poetry of
Samuel Taylor Coleridge, but leaves them as his, not as Adams'.
> > I didn't say that. Passing a value judgement on one thing doesn't mean
> > I'm passing the opposite value judgement on everything else. Ripping
> > something off without saying who it's from and ripping off while making
> > a direct reference is still ripping off, whether or not you've admitted
> > it to yourself and the world.
>
> I'm aware that you understand that, but that's not what I'm getting at. Are
> you saying the perception is only negative when the audience has an admition
> from the creator (writer, director, whatever) in the form of using a name
> that connects the idea to it's originator? To make it more clear, my
> contention is that I would think one's reaction is more negative when they
> see the idea of someone else in the exact form in another's work (in a way
> that is not original), maybe more so when they try to call it something
> else, as if they came up with the idea in the first place.
I think it would depend on the situation to determine which is worse
than the other. I agree that it's bad writing in either case.
> > No, possible legal action just a possible outcome. What distinguishes
> > them is the admission of unoriginality.
>
> If its admission, then, I would say it's a lot more perceptual than just
> using the correct nouns. I'll explain after your example.
>
> > As an example of what I'm saying, I used to have a shareware game for
> > the Mac that was based on the Star Trek universe. Paramount got in a
> > huff and their lawyers sent them a letter; the next release had "Kigons"
> > instead of "Klingons", "The Cube Ship" instead of "The Borg", etc. They
> > evaded the potential for litigation, but from a literary standpoint they
> > were still making a direct reference to Star Trek.
>
> To me, renaming those things in that way was a clear admission that it was
> still Star Trek
We are in agreement on this.
> because what they called them was a direct reference to the
> /ideas/ behind them, not necessarily what they were really called. <snip>
It's just a question of how obvious the association is. There's a good
chance that if Xenogears didn't draw attention to the similarity between
its human-disposal facility and Soylent Green, very few people would
have noticed.
> > They came up with plenty of their own material. But they also directly
> > used someone else's material. Whether or not it was legal for them to do
> > so or if they got sued doesn't change that.
>
> I honestly don't see the name reference as having this effect (of affecting
> their credibility) because it wasn't really attached to the Soylent Green
> idea. I would think this situation would only be more likely in the case of
> someone not understanding what was going on (which wouldn't be so
> surprising, considering how dense the plot got after a while).
It doesn't matter. If I create a character named Superman or who just
has the Superman logo on his chest, it's abundantly clear that it's not
my own material I'm using.
> > Whether or not Xenogears stole anything has no bearing on the fact that
> > an uncalled-for reference was made.
>
> When is homage ever called for?
When it is the subject of a story, or it is a required element to tell
another story, I suppose. Neither of which was the case in Xenogears.
> > The spectrum did not specify stealing at one end and not stealing at the
> > other end. Stealing is irrelevant. I didn't even mention it at either
> > end.
> >
> > The difference between one end and the other is the amount of and
> > importance devoted to the reference, the ability of the story/game to
> > stand on its own, and any history of success for the series.
>
> I still fail to see where history of success plays any importance,
> especially in an age where sequels are looked at with a very cynical eye (if
> we're just talking about the /perception/ of one trying to ride the
> coattails of another's success).
You've got a good point about the cynicism in sequels. In fact, I can
think of a great example: the second Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie
all of a sudden had the turtles copying the whole "Shwing!" thing from
Wayne's World, which had just come out a little earlier. Which was
extremely pathetic. So you're right that the whole success-of-the-former
idea can't be universally applied. Wow, that dredged up some old
memories.
> > FWIW, Xenogears DID steal the name "Soylent".
>
> Soylent as a name, not as an idea. It probably has a meaning all it's own,
> but I've never seen it. Regardless, the idea was not taken, which is the
> contention.
I don't know whether or not they got the original idea from Soylent
Green. That's the problem with ideas, is that you can rarely tell where
they came from. All I DO know is that they spoiled something that was
original enough by tying it to a completely unrelated work.
> But please don't attach any undue meaning to that, as a
> > direct reference can STILL be justified and even required by the nature
> > of the text. It's still a form of theft, though.
>
> If you want to use a word like "theft" for what we're talking about, this is
> going to end up spiraling into the "can anything possibly be original
> anymore" debate. Theft carries a much different meaning than "borrowing."
Call it obvious theft, then.
> > They might have seen it that way, but I don't believe that justifies it.
> > Referencing something unoriginal because you think people will catch on
> > to your unoriginality
>
> Well, here's the other kicker, and where many of my assuptions of your
> argument come from. You directly say here that the idea is unoriginal--so
> are you then saying that it comes from the Soylent Green idea (as in, it
> /is/ the SG idea)? Or is unoriginal to you the only word to describe
> something which is not similar to anything else in existance?
A lot of what is "original" is reflected in the competence and integrity
of the writer. If the writer of XG came up with the idea behind Soylent
Systems with whatever inspiration they may have had (possibly including
Soylent Green) and was confident enough in what they had written, they
would not have felt the need to also reference the external work.
> is an end-of-pipe solution for not coming up with
> > something original in the first place. Either you're confident in your
> > writing (even if it does bear some resemblance to other works) or you're
> > not.
>
> Considering the facts, I would see the idea as original, but that depends on
> your definition of original.
The idea behind it is original enough. What's a shame is that the
writers didn't see it that way.
Balthasar
Clearly I can't answer that question, but I've already provided a
hypothetical.
> > > Yes, and that work is a parody, a very specific genre.
> >
> > Yes, but that wasn't the question. I know what parody is. I asked, why
is
> > what parody does more acceptable, considering the way in which parody
> > creates its material. Pastiche, even. Saying they are separate and
therefore
> > different doesn't explain why they are separate and therefore different.
> >
> > We've been
> > > discussing stories from games such as FF and Xenogears, neither of
which
> > > are parodies, but are instead simple narratives. The same guidelines
> > > aren't going to apply universally.
> >
> > I'm not talking about the guidelines to comedy. Are you implying that
parody
> > cannot occur in science fiction? That it's only context is comedy?
>
> I didn't even use the word "comedy" in either of the above paragraphs.
I know you didn't. Don't you know what the word "implied" means? And it was
a question. Like I said, too defensive.
> This has degenerated badly. Parody is simply a different type of writing
> altogether, one that hinges fundamentally on making reference to other
> works.
I've stated this already.
It's different from the general making references in other types
> of writing the same way that making references to predecessors from
> within a series is different (such as the Cid example).
You're dancing around the question. Parody, as I've stated, creates
(presumably) original material through the use of preexisting ideas. What I
asked you is why it's okay, when clearly they're "ripping ideas and/or
popularity" of others off.
> I'm certain you can continue to think up genres and styles that take
> exception to the general rules of good writing style.
I can't think of any form of writing that doesn't follow the general rules
that one might use to judge it a good piece of writing, with the exception
of children's writing. But that's pretty easily explained--children can't be
expected to understand things on the same level adolescents and up do. What
comprises a good children's book is therefore somewhat different. That still
doesn't answer the question, however.
But the Xenogears
> example of Soylent Systems and Carbonite is not a parody, nor is it
> pastiche, nor is it referring to something within its own series, and
> neither is the overwhelming majority of narratives out there. I'm not
> going to waste time trying to define the rules by listing all of the
> exceptions.
I didn't ask you to do that. My question was pretty simple, I thought. Why
is it okay to create new material through the existance of old material in
parody, but not in, say, science fiction? I would also argue it does occur
pretty frequently, but you're sidestepping the question anyway.
> > I didn't say you meant they were related in a way that had an actual
> > Delorean in Xenogears. Your example of the two time travel stories had
one
> > story, Back To The Future, with their Delorian, and another story,
which,
> > though the plot may be nothing like BTTF, had a time travel car called
the
> > Delorian, which performed in exactly the same way as the Delorian. No
such
> > direct parallel exists between Soylent Green and the Soylent System: the
> > only similarity is the use of the word "soylent" and the fact that the
food
> > made was, at /some/ point, a human (but at production, was not).
>
> It absolutely is a direct parallel. My time-travelling car DOESN'T have
> to perform exactly the same way as the DeLorean.
Your example was that the Delorean from the non-back to the future movie
required the same top speed as the real Delorean to travel back in time, and
use one of the same essential parts to work.
If it so much as IS a
> DeLorean, the reference is obvious, the same way as with Soylent Systems.
No.
When does fiction ever need to be set within our exact "culture" reality?
And saying that would imply an author is not allowed to acknowledge in any
way the existance of something that isn't supposed to exist in that world.
> I haven't thought this through entirely, but I think an important part
> of paying homage/tribute instead of just making a direct reference is
> not claiming someone else's material as your own. In the case of
> Xenogears, both Soylent and Carbonite Freezing were treated as an
> original part of XG's story without acknowledging the source.
How could the writers have accnowledged the carbonite freezing as being a
Star Wars reference without stepping completely outside of the plot? Many
(and, in fact, I might even argue most) homages are hidden within the
layers, only picked up by those familiar with its source, as is the case
here.
> The Star Trek game I described in the previous message, OTOH, clearly
> acknowledged itself as being a game taking place in the Star Trek
> universe.
Because it used Star Trek ideas, not because it said "this is star trek
material."
Another example I can think of would be the Douglas Adams > novel, Dirk
Gently's Holistic Detective Agency, the plot of which
> revolves around direct references to the hallucinogen-inspired poetry of
> Samuel Taylor Coleridge, but leaves them as his, not as Adams'.
A character in a book referencing literature, when that character exists in
"Earth" is a lot simpler than a science fiction characters on top of a
floating kingdom referencing a movie, don't you think? In both cases that
might have been too meta and could have ruined the mood.
<Snip>
> > because what they called them was a direct reference to the
> > /ideas/ behind them, not necessarily what they were really called.
<snip>
>
> It's just a question of how obvious the association is. There's a good
> chance that if Xenogears didn't draw attention to the similarity between
> its human-disposal facility and Soylent Green, very few people would
> have noticed.
I noticed you ignored earlier a point I brought up, which is that this is a
Japanese game. How familar are the Japanese public of Soylent Green? I'm not
saying they are definately less familiar, but in light of not knowing for
sure, it seems to be a more reasonable assumption to make. And if that
assumption is true, then, to them, this is not "pop culture."
> > > They came up with plenty of their own material. But they also directly
> > > used someone else's material. Whether or not it was legal for them to
do
> > > so or if they got sued doesn't change that.
> >
> > I honestly don't see the name reference as having this effect (of
affecting
> > their credibility) because it wasn't really attached to the Soylent
Green
> > idea. I would think this situation would only be more likely in the case
of
> > someone not understanding what was going on (which wouldn't be so
> > surprising, considering how dense the plot got after a while).
>
> It doesn't matter. If I create a character named Superman or who just
> has the Superman logo on his chest, it's abundantly clear that it's not
> my own material I'm using.
That's a bit more complicated a situation. The superman logo is a /logo/. It
carries an idea with it--it's not like just wearing a cape or wearing
tights. The logo represents Superman, so you are in fact stealing an idea
(which I am almost positive you could be sued for, though that is besides
the point). However, if you took the logo and altered it in some way
significant enough that it is not the same, but still /seems/ the same, then
it's quite possible to send a different message based on the association
(like some form of parody). It could be humor, it could be homage (depending
on how it's used), but it's not automatically theft.
> > > Whether or not Xenogears stole anything has no bearing on the fact
that
> > > an uncalled-for reference was made.
> >
> > When is homage ever called for?
>
> When it is the subject of a story, or it is a required element to tell
> another story, I suppose. Neither of which was the case in Xenogears.
Which, again, is why I said, is homage/reference okay when they are
essential or not? That's the second time you've flipped on this. If the less
the better, then how can it be in a postition to be "required," or the
subject of anything?
> > > The spectrum did not specify stealing at one end and not stealing at
the
> > > other end. Stealing is irrelevant. I didn't even mention it at either
> > > end.
> > >
> > > The difference between one end and the other is the amount of and
> > > importance devoted to the reference, the ability of the story/game to
> > > stand on its own, and any history of success for the series.
> >
> > I still fail to see where history of success plays any importance,
> > especially in an age where sequels are looked at with a very cynical eye
(if
> > we're just talking about the /perception/ of one trying to ride the
> > coattails of another's success).
>
> You've got a good point about the cynicism in sequels. In fact, I can
> think of a great example: the second Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie
> all of a sudden had the turtles copying the whole "Shwing!" thing from
> Wayne's World, which had just come out a little earlier. Which was
> extremely pathetic. So you're right that the whole success-of-the-former
> idea can't be universally applied. Wow, that dredged up some old
> memories.
I got that movie for Christmas way back. I was a bit disappointed, to say
the least.
Ninja, Ninja, RAP! Ninja, Ninja, RAP! GO GO GO!
Go ninja, go ninja GO!
> > > FWIW, Xenogears DID steal the name "Soylent".
> >
> > Soylent as a name, not as an idea. It probably has a meaning all it's
own,
> > but I've never seen it. Regardless, the idea was not taken, which is the
> > contention.
>
> I don't know whether or not they got the original idea from Soylent
> Green. That's the problem with ideas, is that you can rarely tell where
> they came from. All I DO know is that they spoiled something that was
> original enough by tying it to a completely unrelated work.
Well, I would say that the primary reason you feel this way about their
usage of that word is because you are familar with it. I've always found
homage works best when it's obscure to the reader/viewer. The more it's
part of your consciousness, the cheesier it's going to seem. Which is why I
keep bringing up the fact that this is a Japanese game, because, at least
back then, they did not write the scripts for their games with audiences
outside of Japan in mind. I don't think they really do now, either. If
you're from Japan, and you see the word "Soylent" once or twice, and have
never heard of the movie, and learned later, while trying to look up a
dictionary of all the terms in Xenogears you find out it's a reference to
some American movie from the 70's, but is not the /idea/ of that movie, how
do you think you would see it?
I think most Americans, when faced with such a situation, either respond in
bewilderment to the layers of "depth" presented by such a reference (if they
liked it), or hate if for being unnecessarily confusing (if they disliked
it).
> > But please don't attach any undue meaning to that, as a
> > > direct reference can STILL be justified and even required by the
nature
> > > of the text. It's still a form of theft, though.
> >
> > If you want to use a word like "theft" for what we're talking about,
this is
> > going to end up spiraling into the "can anything possibly be original
> > anymore" debate. Theft carries a much different meaning than
"borrowing."
>
> Call it obvious theft, then.
Well, then I'm just going to disagree with that word and leave it at that.
> > > They might have seen it that way, but I don't believe that justifies
it.
> > > Referencing something unoriginal because you think people will catch
on
> > > to your unoriginality
> >
> > Well, here's the other kicker, and where many of my assuptions of your
> > argument come from. You directly say here that the idea is
unoriginal--so
> > are you then saying that it comes from the Soylent Green idea (as in, it
> > /is/ the SG idea)? Or is unoriginal to you the only word to describe
> > something which is not similar to anything else in existance?
>
> A lot of what is "original" is reflected in the competence and integrity
> of the writer.
How can you measure integrity before you measure originality? Or competence
before you read his work? Are you presuming to know the writer before you
know his work?
If the writer of XG came up with the idea behind Soylent
> Systems with whatever inspiration they may have had (possibly including
> Soylent Green) and was confident enough in what they had written, they
> would not have felt the need to also reference the external work.
What does confidence have to do with wanting to make a reference? How about
appreciation? Admiration? Intellectual masturbation, even?
> > is an end-of-pipe solution for not coming up with
> > > something original in the first place. Either you're confident in your
> > > writing (even if it does bear some resemblance to other works) or
you're
> > > not.
> >
> > Considering the facts, I would see the idea as original, but that
depends on
> > your definition of original.
>
> The idea behind it is original enough. What's a shame is that the
> writers didn't see it that way.
You assume the writers don't see it that way, I think, because you assume
they think like you. I think it's quite possible the writers don't think the
way you do--I mean, when you look at Xenogears on a whole, the Soylent
Systems was just one of dozens of pre-existing notions, ideas, words, or
themes, that were used to comprise a completely different work. The biblical
references, for example. When you look at the way everything was put
together, again, the only difference between all of that and this is you are
familiar with the term "Soylent." But if I asked you when you played the
game to name the choirs (levels) of angels in heaven, I find it hard to
believe you would have been able to, or know what I was even referring to.
Dan Posluns
"Balthasar" <kdj...@nyu.edu> wrote:
> > You've attached an awful lot of meaning to the question that wasn't
> > there. The question is very simple and is as it stands: if they've come
> > up with their own material, for what possible reason could they want to
> > give it a name that makes people compare it to someone else's work? And
> > it IS a very necessary question to ask (for socratic purposes, anyway).
>
> Clearly I can't answer that question, but I've already provided a
> hypothetical.
It's not a difficult question to answer. Here are some reasons I can
think of:
- They like the source, and want to show how much they like it
- They like the ideas of the source, and want to incorporate them into
something new
- They want others to think of that source (and reflexively not think to
the same extent about their own material)
- They want to use a popular source to make their story look cool
Of these different reasons, only the first two have the POTENTIAL to be
tributary instead of just plagiarism, and that's only so long as the
source is acknowledged. If not, then the author is claiming the idea as
their own. This is what happened in Xenogears with Carbonite and Soylent.
> But the Xenogears
> > example of Soylent Systems and Carbonite is not a parody, nor is it
> > pastiche, nor is it referring to something within its own series, and
> > neither is the overwhelming majority of narratives out there. I'm not
> > going to waste time trying to define the rules by listing all of the
> > exceptions.
>
> I didn't ask you to do that. My question was pretty simple, I thought. Why
> is it okay to create new material through the existance of old material in
> parody, but not in, say, science fiction? I would also argue it does occur
> pretty frequently, but you're sidestepping the question anyway.
I haven't sidestepped it; I've already provided you with your answer,
and it hasn't changed. Parody is a seperate genre unto itself, with its
own rules. By definition a parody makes reference to other works, and
you won't gain anything by trying to compare it with other genres.
> > It absolutely is a direct parallel. My time-travelling car DOESN'T have
> > to perform exactly the same way as the DeLorean.
>
> Your example was that the Delorean from the non-back to the future movie
> required the same top speed as the real Delorean to travel back in time, and
> use one of the same essential parts to work.
Maybe it runs off of lemon juice instead of unleaded gas, the flux
capacitor is a huge mounted laser that fires at 88 mph to open a time
portal, and it has bitching flame decals. The point is that the
reference is there, regardless of how large or how small.
> If it so much as IS a
> > DeLorean, the reference is obvious, the same way as with Soylent Systems.
>
> No.
Yes it is. DeLorean time-travelling car implies BTTF, the same way
Soylent Systems implies Soylent Green. The reference is simply obvious.
> > I can see a reference as being necessary when a story is situated from
> > within a certain pop-culture and, for realism's sake, needs to make a
> > reference to said pop-culture.
>
> When does fiction ever need to be set within our exact "culture" reality?
> And saying that would imply an author is not allowed to acknowledge in any
> way the existance of something that isn't supposed to exist in that world.
I never said it has to be within our own exact culture. It can be any
pop-culture. And yes, making a direct reference to something that isn't
supposed to exist in that world is a big no-no, as it can easily shatter
the suspension-of-disbelief barrier. This is why writers often pay
researchers to make certain they aren't anthropomorphizing.
> > I haven't thought this through entirely, but I think an important part
> > of paying homage/tribute instead of just making a direct reference is
> > not claiming someone else's material as your own. In the case of
> > Xenogears, both Soylent and Carbonite Freezing were treated as an
> > original part of XG's story without acknowledging the source.
>
> How could the writers have accnowledged the carbonite freezing as being a
> Star Wars reference without stepping completely outside of the plot? Many
> (and, in fact, I might even argue most) homages are hidden within the
> layers, only picked up by those familiar with its source, as is the case
> here.
They couldn't have - unless they wanted to say that the terminology came
from the cultural database of the old spaceship, or something - and
therefore shouldn't have made the reference. Even if they HAD been able
to acknowledge it, it was completely unnecessary and uncalled for. If
they wanted to tip their hat to other Star Wars geeks they should have
done so by making the reference much, MUCH more subtle or, better still,
realized that doing so would
> > The Star Trek game I described in the previous message, OTOH, clearly
> > acknowledged itself as being a game taking place in the Star Trek
> > universe.
>
> Because it used Star Trek ideas, not because it said "this is star trek
> material."
No, it acknowledged its source as Star Trek.
> Another example I can think of would be the Douglas Adams > novel, Dirk
> Gently's Holistic Detective Agency, the plot of which
> > revolves around direct references to the hallucinogen-inspired poetry of
> > Samuel Taylor Coleridge, but leaves them as his, not as Adams'.
>
> A character in a book referencing literature, when that character exists in
> "Earth" is a lot simpler than a science fiction characters on top of a
> floating kingdom referencing a movie, don't you think? In both cases that
> might have been too meta and could have ruined the mood.
Yes, it IS a lot simpler. And more appropriate. Which is part of the
reason why Xenogears shouldn't have done it.
> > It's just a question of how obvious the association is. There's a good
> > chance that if Xenogears didn't draw attention to the similarity between
> > its human-disposal facility and Soylent Green, very few people would
> > have noticed.
>
> I noticed you ignored earlier a point I brought up, which is that this is a
> Japanese game. How familar are the Japanese public of Soylent Green? I'm not
> saying they are definately less familiar, but in light of not knowing for
> sure, it seems to be a more reasonable assumption to make. And if that
> assumption is true, then, to them, this is not "pop culture."
One of the reasons I didn't want to deal with that was because it raises
another question: do we know with certainty that it was called "Soylent"
in the Japanese version?
Regardless, it doesn't matter if the reference is obscure, if you're
copying someone else's material, you're copying someone else's material.
If anything, people will be more annoyed if you're caught trying to pull
the wool over their eyes by copying something you hope they won't know
about, because it shows your intentions were to plagiarize.
> > It doesn't matter. If I create a character named Superman or who just
> > has the Superman logo on his chest, it's abundantly clear that it's not
> > my own material I'm using.
>
> That's a bit more complicated a situation. The superman logo is a /logo/. It
> carries an idea with it--it's not like just wearing a cape or wearing
> tights. The logo represents Superman, so you are in fact stealing an idea
> (which I am almost positive you could be sued for, though that is besides
> the point). However, if you took the logo and altered it in some way
> significant enough that it is not the same, but still /seems/ the same, then
> it's quite possible to send a different message based on the association
> (like some form of parody). It could be humor, it could be homage (depending
> on how it's used), but it's not automatically theft.
This is the thing, though: the reference is always there. Godspell, for
example, has Jesus in a Superman shirt, but the logo is greatly deformed
so there's no chance of litigation. But you can't deny the obvious
reference to Superman. For better or for worse, it's still there.
> > When it is the subject of a story, or it is a required element to tell
> > another story, I suppose. Neither of which was the case in Xenogears.
>
> Which, again, is why I said, is homage/reference okay when they are
> essential or not? That's the second time you've flipped on this. If the less
> the better, then how can it be in a postition to be "required," or the
> subject of anything?
I haven't flipped at all. Less being better was provisional on the
claiming of originality. If someone wants to write a story entirely
based on someone else's story they can, so long as they don't claim the
source material as their own. It's like all of the Star Wars novels
written by independent authors: none of them take claim for the
underlying source of their material, which is why they all say "Star
Wars" on the cover.
An example of a required reference would be the Nerd Trio from Buffy the
Vampire Slayer. As characters, they would not be particularly
believeable if they didn't make regular references to nerd pop-culture.
In this case, however, once again the source is acknowledged (even if
that source is just "pop-culture") and the author is not claiming it as
their own material.
> > I don't know whether or not they got the original idea from Soylent
> > Green. That's the problem with ideas, is that you can rarely tell where
> > they came from. All I DO know is that they spoiled something that was
> > original enough by tying it to a completely unrelated work.
>
> Well, I would say that the primary reason you feel this way about their
> usage of that word is because you are familar with it. I've always found
> homage works best when it's obscure to the reader/viewer. The more it's
> part of your consciousness, the cheesier it's going to seem. Which is why I
> keep bringing up the fact that this is a Japanese game, because, at least
> back then, they did not write the scripts for their games with audiences
> outside of Japan in mind. I don't think they really do now, either. If
> you're from Japan, and you see the word "Soylent" once or twice, and have
> never heard of the movie, and learned later, while trying to look up a
> dictionary of all the terms in Xenogears you find out it's a reference to
> some American movie from the 70's, but is not the /idea/ of that movie, how
> do you think you would see it?
I would personally think "rip-off", because they made a direct reference
to it, didn't acknowledge where it came from, and it seems as though
they were hoping that I wouldn't pick up on it.
> > A lot of what is "original" is reflected in the competence and integrity
> > of the writer.
>
> How can you measure integrity before you measure originality? Or competence
> before you read his work? Are you presuming to know the writer before you
> know his work?
No; their competence and integrity is reflected and measured by their
works.
> If the writer of XG came up with the idea behind Soylent
> > Systems with whatever inspiration they may have had (possibly including
> > Soylent Green) and was confident enough in what they had written, they
> > would not have felt the need to also reference the external work.
>
> What does confidence have to do with wanting to make a reference? How about
> appreciation? Admiration? Intellectual masturbation, even?
If the writer was confident that their work was original and stood on
its own, even with a passing similarity to Soylent Green in that one
scene, they would not have found it necessary to make the reference.
Self-gratification by putting a reference in to something they
appreciated or admired may be tempting, but it is a very amateurish
thing to do, and it brings nothing to the story. It has no place in
serious literature.
> > The idea behind it is original enough. What's a shame is that the
> > writers didn't see it that way.
>
> You assume the writers don't see it that way, I think, because you assume
> they think like you. I think it's quite possible the writers don't think the
> way you do--I mean, when you look at Xenogears on a whole, the Soylent
> Systems was just one of dozens of pre-existing notions, ideas, words, or
> themes, that were used to comprise a completely different work. The biblical
> references, for example. When you look at the way everything was put
> together, again, the only difference between all of that and this is you are
> familiar with the term "Soylent." But if I asked you when you played the
> game to name the choirs (levels) of angels in heaven, I find it hard to
> believe you would have been able to, or know what I was even referring to.
Biblical and mythological references are a bit different from
referencing something more current. I'm not certain if it's just because
it's a more accepted practice (in the realms of Science Fiction and
Fantasy, anyway) or if it's just because you're using material that
everyone else uses (ie. it's considered a common pool of resources), or
if it's because you are referencing something without a distinct author.
People get annoyed at the overload of biblical references in Xenogears,
but not as many people do, and they do for different reasons than the
Soylent Green and Star Wars references. It's apples and oranges, really.
Balthasar
> In article <PKaO9.206$zu2....@typhoon.nyu.edu>,
> "Balthasar" <kdj...@nyu.edu> wrote:
>
> > > You've attached an awful lot of meaning to the question that wasn't
> > > there. The question is very simple and is as it stands: if they've
come
> > > up with their own material, for what possible reason could they want
to
> > > give it a name that makes people compare it to someone else's work?
And
> > > it IS a very necessary question to ask (for socratic purposes,
anyway).
> >
> > Clearly I can't answer that question, but I've already provided a
> > hypothetical.
>
> It's not a difficult question to answer. Here are some reasons I can
> think of:
>
> - They like the source, and want to show how much they like it
> - They like the ideas of the source, and want to incorporate them into
> something new
> - They want others to think of that source (and reflexively not think to
> the same extent about their own material)
> - They want to use a popular source to make their story look cool
I provided some similar possibilities later in the post.
> Of these different reasons, only the first two have the POTENTIAL to be
> tributary instead of just plagiarism, and that's only so long as the
> source is acknowledged. If not, then the author is claiming the idea as
> their own. This is what happened in Xenogears with Carbonite and Soylent.
The only way I can see the source of a reference being acknowledged, outside
of something outside of the game (I'm not sure what the standard would be
there, since they might only include such credit in, say, the credits if
there's a legal reason), is making some sort of reference to the creator as
well. I've personally never seen this sort of thing done for a reference. If
it's not something that can't be meantioned in story, I think it's just not
meantioned at all, and it's perfectly acceptable. In the case of fiction, I
don't think /not/ specifiying credit means taking credit yourself.
> > But the Xenogears
> > > example of Soylent Systems and Carbonite is not a parody, nor is it
> > > pastiche, nor is it referring to something within its own series, and
> > > neither is the overwhelming majority of narratives out there. I'm not
> > > going to waste time trying to define the rules by listing all of the
> > > exceptions.
> >
> > I didn't ask you to do that. My question was pretty simple, I thought.
Why
> > is it okay to create new material through the existance of old material
in
> > parody, but not in, say, science fiction? I would also argue it does
occur
> > pretty frequently, but you're sidestepping the question anyway.
>
> I haven't sidestepped it; I've already provided you with your answer,
> and it hasn't changed. Parody is a seperate genre unto itself, with its
> own rules. By definition a parody makes reference to other works, and
> you won't gain anything by trying to compare it with other genres.
Okay, I'll try to clarify further. From what I know about parody, the /only/
reason it is acceptable is because it /creates/ new material out of the old.
There is no other special law or rule or anything that it works under that
other forms of fiction don't. My argument then is that, just because it's
not called parody does not mean it could not use old ideas, and combine them
in a new and original idea. I would also argue that it is in fact done in
just about every artistic genre, frequently.
> > > It absolutely is a direct parallel. My time-travelling car DOESN'T
have
> > > to perform exactly the same way as the DeLorean.
> >
> > Your example was that the Delorean from the non-back to the future movie
> > required the same top speed as the real Delorean to travel back in time,
and
> > use one of the same essential parts to work.
>
> Maybe it runs off of lemon juice instead of unleaded gas, the flux
> capacitor is a huge mounted laser that fires at 88 mph to open a time
> portal, and it has bitching flame decals. The point is that the
> reference is there, regardless of how large or how small.
My point was specific to the example you created, which stated itself
explicitly. So adding or changing things now is besides the point (which was
that your example is not at all /exactly/ related to the Soylent system).
Maybe you did not understand what I meant when I said it is not exactly
related. I mean /exactly/--that is, it is not a very good analogy. Saying
they are a direct parallel implies the idea is the same in both works.
> > If it so much as IS a
> > > DeLorean, the reference is obvious, the same way as with Soylent
Systems.
> >
> > No.
>
> Yes it is. DeLorean time-travelling car implies BTTF, the same way
> Soylent Systems implies Soylent Green. The reference is simply obvious.
I was actually saying no to the whole thing, not that portion you left
unsnipped; however, Delorean implies one thing--Delorean. It was within the
BTTF movie, but it doesn't imply anything within that movie but the car.
Likewise, if you are familiar with Soylent Green, Soylent Systems imples
"food from people." That is most likely the first thing you would think, and
really, that's the only thing it is even related to. Not only that, but
adding the word systems, I would think, implies something extra
after-the-fact--that (besides not being "food" per se) it has something to
do with a process, possibly relating to the connection in the word
"Soylent." The fact that "Soylent Systems" imples anything about Soylent
Green has already been established, however, so I fail to see the point of
your comment, considering your example between two movies with two deloreans
was not just implied, but explicit.
> > > I can see a reference as being necessary when a story is situated from
> > > within a certain pop-culture and, for realism's sake, needs to make a
> > > reference to said pop-culture.
> >
> > When does fiction ever need to be set within our exact "culture"
reality?
> > And saying that would imply an author is not allowed to acknowledge in
any
> > way the existance of something that isn't supposed to exist in that
world.
>
> I never said it has to be within our own exact culture. It can be any
> pop-culture.
And yes, making a direct reference to something that isn't
> supposed to exist in that world is a big no-no, as it can easily shatter
> the suspension-of-disbelief barrier.
My comment there actually goes more in line with my obscure reference
comment--that is, if you don't know what it's talking about, it isn't going
to harm anything. Like, if one of the characters of some fantasy novel is
named after the novelist's mother.
> > > I haven't thought this through entirely, but I think an important part
> > > of paying homage/tribute instead of just making a direct reference is
> > > not claiming someone else's material as your own. In the case of
> > > Xenogears, both Soylent and Carbonite Freezing were treated as an
> > > original part of XG's story without acknowledging the source.
> >
> > How could the writers have accnowledged the carbonite freezing as being
a
> > Star Wars reference without stepping completely outside of the plot?
Many
> > (and, in fact, I might even argue most) homages are hidden within the
> > layers, only picked up by those familiar with its source, as is the case
> > here.
>
> They couldn't have - unless they wanted to say that the terminology came
> from the cultural database of the old spaceship, or something
I don't think within the context of Xenogears that this would have satisfied
the need for "acnowledgement." A lot of things in the game had spanned over
several generations, such as the existance of gears (and omni gears). Saying
it was from some cultural database just entrenches it further into
Xenogears' mythos.
- and
> therefore shouldn't have made the reference.
My point was that in most cases of homage making, you can't assign proper
credit like a bibliography, and in fact don't need to.
Even if they HAD been able
> to acknowledge it, it was completely unnecessary and uncalled for.
My other point is that it is a rare occasion when homage (and don't forget
what homage is) is actually necessary. It is generally personal.
If
> they wanted to tip their hat to other Star Wars geeks they should have
> done so by making the reference much, MUCH more subtle or, better still,
> realized that doing so would
Would...? Regardless, I agree that homages and other non-essential
references are best when obscure (if you are in fact hinting towards that),
but I'm not arguing whether the homages WORK or not.
> > > The Star Trek game I described in the previous message, OTOH, clearly
> > > acknowledged itself as being a game taking place in the Star Trek
> > > universe.
> >
> > Because it used Star Trek ideas, not because it said "this is star trek
> > material."
>
> No, it acknowledged its source as Star Trek.
It literally said in it's manual that this is Star Trek? Because you said
they legally weren't allowed to do that? If so, it doesn't really fit within
what we were talking about, then. Explain.
> > Another example I can think of would be the Douglas Adams > novel, Dirk
> > Gently's Holistic Detective Agency, the plot of which
> > > revolves around direct references to the hallucinogen-inspired poetry
of
> > > Samuel Taylor Coleridge, but leaves them as his, not as Adams'.
> >
> > A character in a book referencing literature, when that character exists
in
> > "Earth" is a lot simpler than a science fiction characters on top of a
> > floating kingdom referencing a movie, don't you think? In both cases
that
> > might have been too meta and could have ruined the mood.
>
> Yes, it IS a lot simpler. And more appropriate. Which is part of the
> reason why Xenogears shouldn't have done it.
Read above.
> > > It's just a question of how obvious the association is. There's a good
> > > chance that if Xenogears didn't draw attention to the similarity
between
> > > its human-disposal facility and Soylent Green, very few people would
> > > have noticed.
> >
> > I noticed you ignored earlier a point I brought up, which is that this
is a
> > Japanese game. How familar are the Japanese public of Soylent Green? I'm
not
> > saying they are definately less familiar, but in light of not knowing
for
> > sure, it seems to be a more reasonable assumption to make. And if that
> > assumption is true, then, to them, this is not "pop culture."
>
> One of the reasons I didn't want to deal with that was because it raises
> another question: do we know with certainty that it was called "Soylent"
> in the Japanese version?
I would prefer to ignore that and stick with what is here. You might think
that this would include ignoring the "japan-first" factor, but I think it's
way too important to ignore.
> Regardless, it doesn't matter if the reference is obscure, if you're
> copying someone else's material, you're copying someone else's material.
Except they're not. You wonder how I got confused earlier about what we were
arguing about when you jump again from talking about the legitimacy of a
possible perception of Xenogears trying to ride the coattails of the
popularity of Soylent Green and Star Wars, to whether the ideas themselves
were nabbed or homages. And why I stressed a need to separate what you were
talking about in your examples. If you want to talk about whether they stole
their ideas or not, fine. But don't switch back and forth.
> If anything, people will be more annoyed if you're caught trying to pull
> the wool over their eyes by copying something you hope they won't know
> about, because it shows your intentions were to plagiarize.
Not if there was no plagarism.
> > > It doesn't matter. If I create a character named Superman or who just
> > > has the Superman logo on his chest, it's abundantly clear that it's
not
> > > my own material I'm using.
> >
> > That's a bit more complicated a situation. The superman logo is a
/logo/. It
> > carries an idea with it--it's not like just wearing a cape or wearing
> > tights. The logo represents Superman, so you are in fact stealing an
idea
> > (which I am almost positive you could be sued for, though that is
besides
> > the point). However, if you took the logo and altered it in some way
> > significant enough that it is not the same, but still /seems/ the same,
then
> > it's quite possible to send a different message based on the association
> > (like some form of parody). It could be humor, it could be homage
(depending
> > on how it's used), but it's not automatically theft.
>
> This is the thing, though: the reference is always there.
I am not, and have not ever, disputed that doing this, or doing what
xenogears did (which was very similar), was not making a reference.
Godspell, for
> example, has Jesus in a Superman shirt, but the logo is greatly deformed
> so there's no chance of litigation. But you can't deny the obvious
> reference to Superman. For better or for worse, it's still there.
Sure, but is he Superman? Is he supposed to be Superman? Is something being
indicated through the reference other than "I am Superman?"
> > > When it is the subject of a story, or it is a required element to tell
> > > another story, I suppose. Neither of which was the case in Xenogears.
> >
> > Which, again, is why I said, is homage/reference okay when they are
> > essential or not? That's the second time you've flipped on this. If the
less
> > the better, then how can it be in a postition to be "required," or the
> > subject of anything?
>
> I haven't flipped at all. Less being better was provisional on the
> claiming of originality.
Who was talking about claiming homages "original?"
If someone wants to write a story entirely
> based on someone else's story they can, so long as they don't claim the
> source material as their own. It's like all of the Star Wars novels
> written by independent authors: none of them take claim for the
> underlying source of their material, which is why they all say "Star
> Wars" on the cover.
How does Xenogears claim the word "Soylent" or the term "Carbon Freezing" as
their own?
> An example of a required reference would be the Nerd Trio from Buffy the
> Vampire Slayer. As characters, they would not be particularly
> believeable if they didn't make regular references to nerd pop-culture.
> In this case, however, once again the source is acknowledged (even if
> that source is just "pop-culture") and the author is not claiming it as
> their own material.
How is the source acknowledged, exactly?
> > > I don't know whether or not they got the original idea from Soylent
> > > Green. That's the problem with ideas, is that you can rarely tell
where
> > > they came from. All I DO know is that they spoiled something that was
> > > original enough by tying it to a completely unrelated work.
> >
> > Well, I would say that the primary reason you feel this way about their
> > usage of that word is because you are familar with it. I've always found
> > homage works best when it's obscure to the reader/viewer. The more it's
> > part of your consciousness, the cheesier it's going to seem. Which is
why I
> > keep bringing up the fact that this is a Japanese game, because, at
least
> > back then, they did not write the scripts for their games with audiences
> > outside of Japan in mind. I don't think they really do now, either. If
> > you're from Japan, and you see the word "Soylent" once or twice, and
have
> > never heard of the movie, and learned later, while trying to look up a
> > dictionary of all the terms in Xenogears you find out it's a reference
to
> > some American movie from the 70's, but is not the /idea/ of that movie,
how
> > do you think you would see it?
>
> I would personally think "rip-off", because they made a direct reference
> to it, didn't acknowledge where it came from,
Not possible. Not possible in most cases of homage, in my opinion.
and it seems as though
> they were hoping that I wouldn't pick up on it.
So why write the Perfect Works book? From what I have read about it, it's
basically the Xenogears bible--supposed to explain everything about the
game, chronicles everything, places each part of the originally concieved
story to actual dates. That's not the creators trying to hide what'd going
on. It was also only released in Japan.
> > > A lot of what is "original" is reflected in the competence and
integrity
> > > of the writer.
> >
> > How can you measure integrity before you measure originality? Or
competence
> > before you read his work? Are you presuming to know the writer before
you
> > know his work?
>
> No; their competence and integrity is reflected and measured by their
> works.
You don't see the problem with that logic? You said originality is measured
by the integrity of the writer--but then you say the integrity is reflected
in their work--which is where you would judge originality, right (since you
aren't looking at anything else)? So what do you use as a judge of this
intergrity? What you see as being original, and what you see as not being
original? I hope this circular logic is clear, here.
> > If the writer of XG came up with the idea behind Soylent
> > > Systems with whatever inspiration they may have had (possibly
including
> > > Soylent Green) and was confident enough in what they had written, they
> > > would not have felt the need to also reference the external work.
> >
> > What does confidence have to do with wanting to make a reference? How
about
> > appreciation? Admiration? Intellectual masturbation, even?
>
> If the writer was confident that their work was original and stood on
> its own, even with a passing similarity to Soylent Green in that one
> scene, they would not have found it necessary to make the reference.
If all writers thought like you, maybe. Would you explain Xenogears'
reference to "The Shinning" this way? In case you don't know what I'm
talking about, there's a boss you fight in the sewers when you meet Rico (in
Kislev), named "Redrum."
> Self-gratification by putting a reference in to something they >
appreciated or admired may be tempting, but it is a very amateurish
> thing to do, and it brings nothing to the story. It has no place in
> serious literature.
You don't think authors or people in other forms of art do things which are
self-gratifying and not important to the work itself? What about the famous
panting of Michelangelo, flayed, within the sistine chapel frescos? I would
hardly consider that work "amaturish," but maybe you disagree. Also, this
is a videogame, not serious literature. Even the best videogame stories
don't make for "serious literature" for reasons beyond just the quality of
the work.
> > > The idea behind it is original enough. What's a shame is that the
> > > writers didn't see it that way.
> >
> > You assume the writers don't see it that way, I think, because you
assume
> > they think like you. I think it's quite possible the writers don't think
the
> > way you do--I mean, when you look at Xenogears on a whole, the Soylent
> > Systems was just one of dozens of pre-existing notions, ideas, words, or
> > themes, that were used to comprise a completely different work. The
biblical
> > references, for example. When you look at the way everything was put
> > together, again, the only difference between all of that and this is you
are
> > familiar with the term "Soylent." But if I asked you when you played the
> > game to name the choirs (levels) of angels in heaven, I find it hard to
> > believe you would have been able to, or know what I was even referring
to.
>
> Biblical and mythological references are a bit different from
> referencing something more current. I'm not certain if it's just because
> it's a more accepted practice (in the realms of Science Fiction and
> Fantasy, anyway) or if it's just because you're using material that
> everyone else uses (ie. it's considered a common pool of resources), or
> if it's because you are referencing something without a distinct author.
Consider the Redrum example. Stephen King is a very well known author. Does
calling that boss "Redrum" sound like some attempt to leech off success or
plagarize?
> People get annoyed at the overload of biblical references in Xenogears,
> but not as many people do,
I would say those that do and those that don't fall within those two
categories (or the in-between "I didn't really care" category).
and they do for different reasons than the
> Soylent Green and Star Wars references. It's apples and oranges, really.
Yeah, and I've presented a reason why I think so. Very few videogame players
have doctorates in Theology. Further, biblical references don't really get
the free pass you insinuate they do. I recall the first time I read "The
Grapes of Wrath" back in high school, myself, as well as many of my
classmates, found the big Jesus reference at the end very, very cheesy. If
my theory holds any water, it would explain why pretty easily. Cain and Abel
references I also personally find very cheesy, but maybe that's just me.
Dan Posluns
this topic... it's just consuming too much time and effort, and we
aren't really covering any new material at this point.
In article <CgBO9.214$zu2....@typhoon.nyu.edu>,
"Balthasar" <kdj...@nyu.edu> wrote:
> > Of these different reasons, only the first two have the POTENTIAL to be
> > tributary instead of just plagiarism, and that's only so long as the
> > source is acknowledged. If not, then the author is claiming the idea as
> > their own. This is what happened in Xenogears with Carbonite and Soylent.
>
> The only way I can see the source of a reference being acknowledged, outside
> of something outside of the game (I'm not sure what the standard would be
> there, since they might only include such credit in, say, the credits if
> there's a legal reason), is making some sort of reference to the creator as
> well. I've personally never seen this sort of thing done for a reference. If
> it's not something that can't be meantioned in story, I think it's just not
> meantioned at all, and it's perfectly acceptable. In the case of fiction, I
> don't think /not/ specifiying credit means taking credit yourself.
A direct reference to the creator isn't absolutely necessary (although
an acknowledgement in the credits or somesuch is always is nice) in
order to acknowledge that the author of the story isn't the author of
the reference. They just need to make it clear from within the context
that it's not an original idea, which Xenogears doesn't.
Xenogears claims to be an original story, and if I had never heard of
Carbonite Freezing from Star Wars or of Soylent Green, I would think
these ideas were their own. In this respect, they have taken credit for
those ideas.
> > I haven't sidestepped it; I've already provided you with your answer,
> > and it hasn't changed. Parody is a seperate genre unto itself, with its
> > own rules. By definition a parody makes reference to other works, and
> > you won't gain anything by trying to compare it with other genres.
>
> Okay, I'll try to clarify further. From what I know about parody, the /only/
> reason it is acceptable is because it /creates/ new material out of the old.
> There is no other special law or rule or anything that it works under that
> other forms of fiction don't. My argument then is that, just because it's
> not called parody does not mean it could not use old ideas, and combine them
> in a new and original idea. I would also argue that it is in fact done in
> just about every artistic genre, frequently.
For hopefully the last time: I'm not talking about just reusing and
recombining other ideas, I'm talking about making direct references.
This is what Xenogears does with Carbonite, Soylent, Redrum, etc. that's
different from other, similar stories.
> > Maybe it runs off of lemon juice instead of unleaded gas, the flux
> > capacitor is a huge mounted laser that fires at 88 mph to open a time
> > portal, and it has bitching flame decals. The point is that the
> > reference is there, regardless of how large or how small.
>
> My point was specific to the example you created, which stated itself
> explicitly. So adding or changing things now is besides the point (which was
> that your example is not at all /exactly/ related to the Soylent system).
> Maybe you did not understand what I meant when I said it is not exactly
> related. I mean /exactly/--that is, it is not a very good analogy. Saying
> they are a direct parallel implies the idea is the same in both works.
I'm not adding or changing anything; I'm just extending the BTTF example
as you extended the Soylent example. The parallel is exact: My imaginary
story relates to BTTF through the use of a direct reference (no matter
how similar or different the rest of the story may be) the same way
Xenogears relates to Soylent Green through the use of a direct reference
(no matter how similar or different the rest of the story may be).
> > > If it so much as IS a
> > > > DeLorean, the reference is obvious, the same way as with Soylent
> Systems.
> > >
> > > No.
> >
> > Yes it is. DeLorean time-travelling car implies BTTF, the same way
> > Soylent Systems implies Soylent Green. The reference is simply obvious.
>
> I was actually saying no to the whole thing, not that portion you left
> unsnipped; however, Delorean implies one thing--Delorean. It was within the
> BTTF movie, but it doesn't imply anything within that movie but the car.
This is a mistake: Delorean (a time-travelling one, anyway) implies
BTTF, not the car. That's what a reference does: it triggers a
connection to the source of the reference.
> Likewise, if you are familiar with Soylent Green, Soylent Systems imples
> "food from people."
No, it implies Soylent Green. "Food from people" is then derived off of
that.
> That is most likely the first thing you would think, and
> really, that's the only thing it is even related to. Not only that, but
> adding the word systems, I would think, implies something extra
> after-the-fact--that (besides not being "food" per se) it has something to
> do with a process, possibly relating to the connection in the word
> "Soylent." The fact that "Soylent Systems" imples anything about Soylent
> Green has already been established, however, so I fail to see the point of
> your comment, considering your example between two movies with two deloreans
> was not just implied, but explicit.
The point is that you seem to continually deny that using the word
Soylent forces an association to the movie/book Soylent Green. My point
is that it absolutely does, no matter how you slice it, the same way a
time-travelling Delorean will always imply BTTF, even if everything else
is different. It's that association that's important; the ideas behind
it are of debatable origin.
> > I never said it has to be within our own exact culture. It can be any
> > pop-culture.
> And yes, making a direct reference to something that isn't
> > supposed to exist in that world is a big no-no, as it can easily shatter
> > the suspension-of-disbelief barrier.
>
> My comment there actually goes more in line with my obscure reference
> comment--that is, if you don't know what it's talking about, it isn't going
> to harm anything. Like, if one of the characters of some fantasy novel is
> named after the novelist's mother.
I shouldn't have to tell you that referencing the novelist's mother is
not the same thing as referencing another literary work.
> > They couldn't have - unless they wanted to say that the terminology came
> > from the cultural database of the old spaceship, or something
>
> I don't think within the context of Xenogears that this would have satisfied
> the need for "acnowledgement." A lot of things in the game had spanned over
> several generations, such as the existance of gears (and omni gears). Saying
> it was from some cultural database just entrenches it further into
> Xenogears' mythos.
I agree that it would be a longshot, at best.
> - and
> > therefore shouldn't have made the reference.
>
> My point was that in most cases of homage making, you can't assign proper
> credit like a bibliography, and in fact don't need to.
I don't believe it's something that should be done at all in serious
fiction. But in the case of a game like Xenogears, they had a couple of
options they could have exercised, that they didn't:
- Bury it, make it hidden, a secret, etc. instead of just something you
would inevitably encounter in the course of the game
- Make it an extremely subtle reference
I still don't think either of these would make it appropriate, but it
would make it seem a lot more like they were making an inside-reference
that way.
> Even if they HAD been able
> > to acknowledge it, it was completely unnecessary and uncalled for.
>
> My other point is that it is a rare occasion when homage (and don't forget
> what homage is) is actually necessary. It is generally personal.
And inappropriate for a story that takes itself seriously.
> If
> > they wanted to tip their hat to other Star Wars geeks they should have
> > done so by making the reference much, MUCH more subtle or, better still,
> > realized that doing so would
>
> Would...?
Clearly I failed in my attempts to return to that paragraph. ^_^
> Regardless, I agree that homages and other non-essential
> references are best when obscure (if you are in fact hinting towards that),
> but I'm not arguing whether the homages WORK or not.
I wouldn't say "best" so much as "not as problematic" when they're left
obscure by virtue of the fact that there's less of them. By definition,
though, a non-essential reference is unessential, and therefore should
not be made. Since homages are non-essential, they generally should not
be made either.
> > > > The Star Trek game I described in the previous message, OTOH, clearly
> > > > acknowledged itself as being a game taking place in the Star Trek
> > > > universe.
> > >
> > > Because it used Star Trek ideas, not because it said "this is star trek
> > > material."
> >
> > No, it acknowledged its source as Star Trek.
>
> It literally said in it's manual that this is Star Trek? Because you said
> they legally weren't allowed to do that? If so, it doesn't really fit within
> what we were talking about, then. Explain.
IIRC, after the threat of litigation "a universe based on Star Trek"
changed to a statement along the lines of "any similarities etc. are
purely coincidental", but it was still abundantly clear that this was
only to avoid litigation, and that the author didn't mean a word of it
and would acknowledge the source if not for the fact that he'd get sued
if he did.
> > One of the reasons I didn't want to deal with that was because it raises
> > another question: do we know with certainty that it was called "Soylent"
> > in the Japanese version?
>
> I would prefer to ignore that and stick with what is here. You might think
> that this would include ignoring the "japan-first" factor, but I think it's
> way too important to ignore.
Well, it's important to realize that Redrum, Carbonite Freezing and
Soylent Systems may all be figments of the translators, which negates
their significance to the Japanese entirely.
> > Regardless, it doesn't matter if the reference is obscure, if you're
> > copying someone else's material, you're copying someone else's material.
>
> Except they're not. You wonder how I got confused earlier about what we were
> arguing about when you jump again from talking about the legitimacy of a
> possible perception of Xenogears trying to ride the coattails of the
> popularity of Soylent Green and Star Wars, to whether the ideas themselves
> were nabbed or homages. And why I stressed a need to separate what you were
> talking about in your examples. If you want to talk about whether they stole
> their ideas or not, fine. But don't switch back and forth.
Material != Ideas.
Soylent is someone else's material. Redrum is someone else's material.
Carbonite Freezing is someone else's material.
> > If anything, people will be more annoyed if you're caught trying to pull
> > the wool over their eyes by copying something you hope they won't know
> > about, because it shows your intentions were to plagiarize.
>
> Not if there was no plagarism.
There WAS plagiarism. Plagiarism isn't restricted to the underlying
ideas.
> Godspell, for
> > example, has Jesus in a Superman shirt, but the logo is greatly deformed
> > so there's no chance of litigation. But you can't deny the obvious
> > reference to Superman. For better or for worse, it's still there.
>
> Sure, but is he Superman? Is he supposed to be Superman? Is something being
> indicated through the reference other than "I am Superman?"
You'd have to ask the authors (I am under the extreme suspiscion that
they were high when they wrote it) but the point is (in response to what
you said, that changing the logo could change the message) that you are
making an association with Superman, regardless of what additional or
altered messages you send.
> > I haven't flipped at all. Less being better was provisional on the
> > claiming of originality.
>
> Who was talking about claiming homages "original?"
I was. When you have an original story, it is expected that the source
of all of the content is (more or less) the author of it. When you make
a reference to another person's work without acknowledging that it isn't
your material, it violates that trust between the author and audience.
> If someone wants to write a story entirely
> > based on someone else's story they can, so long as they don't claim the
> > source material as their own. It's like all of the Star Wars novels
> > written by independent authors: none of them take claim for the
> > underlying source of their material, which is why they all say "Star
> > Wars" on the cover.
>
> How does Xenogears claim the word "Soylent" or the term "Carbon Freezing" as
> their own?
By doing nothing to mention that it's not their own. There are tons of
clever names or ideas I could take from other stories and put in my own,
but I don't do it because they're not mine.
If I was playing Xenogears without ever having seen Star Wars or heard
of Soylent Green, I would think that they came up with the terms Carbon
Freezing and Soylent. And that would be wrong.
> > An example of a required reference would be the Nerd Trio from Buffy the
> > Vampire Slayer. As characters, they would not be particularly
> > believeable if they didn't make regular references to nerd pop-culture.
> > In this case, however, once again the source is acknowledged (even if
> > that source is just "pop-culture") and the author is not claiming it as
> > their own material.
>
> How is the source acknowledged, exactly?
Because the characters make it evident that they are quipping from
pop-culture. There is no such obviousness in Xenogears.
> > I would personally think "rip-off", because they made a direct reference
> > to it, didn't acknowledge where it came from,
>
> Not possible. Not possible in most cases of homage, in my opinion.
Depends on the type of story, but you're right that most sci-fi and
fantasy are unable to do so.
> and it seems as though
> > they were hoping that I wouldn't pick up on it.
>
> So why write the Perfect Works book? From what I have read about it, it's
> basically the Xenogears bible--supposed to explain everything about the
> game, chronicles everything, places each part of the originally concieved
> story to actual dates. That's not the creators trying to hide what'd going
> on. It was also only released in Japan.
We don't know whether or not Perfect Works documents the pop-culture
references. We don't even know if the pop-culture references were made
in the Japanese version.
Although I have no evidence to support or deny it, my guess is that the
book mostly lists biblical and mythological references and doesn't
mention The Shining, Star Wars or Soylent Green.
> > No; their competence and integrity is reflected and measured by their
> > works.
>
> You don't see the problem with that logic? You said originality is measured
> by the integrity of the writer--but then you say the integrity is reflected
> in their work--which is where you would judge originality, right (since you
> aren't looking at anything else)? So what do you use as a judge of this
> intergrity? What you see as being original, and what you see as not being
> original? I hope this circular logic is clear, here.
Originality isn't measured by integrity of the writer, although the
writer's confidence in their own originality can be measured by it.
These terms aren't rigidly-defined enough to apply simple propositional
logic to, though.
> > If the writer was confident that their work was original and stood on
> > its own, even with a passing similarity to Soylent Green in that one
> > scene, they would not have found it necessary to make the reference.
>
> If all writers thought like you, maybe. Would you explain Xenogears'
> reference to "The Shinning" this way? In case you don't know what I'm
> talking about, there's a boss you fight in the sewers when you meet Rico (in
> Kislev), named "Redrum."
Yeah, I'd forgotten about the Redrum thing until you mentioned it here.
It parallels the other references we've been discussing, though.
They could have named the boss anything. They could have simply named it
Murder, if they wanted. If they were REALLY keen on using Redrum, they
could have at least reversed the letters of other enemies or bosses to
make it look like it wasn't such a direct reference. Leaving the
reference in plain sight the way they did brought nothing to the story
and just needlessly incremented their "rip-off" counter.
> > Self-gratification by putting a reference in to something they >
> appreciated or admired may be tempting, but it is a very amateurish
> > thing to do, and it brings nothing to the story. It has no place in
> > serious literature.
>
> You don't think authors or people in other forms of art do things which are
> self-gratifying and not important to the work itself? What about the famous
> panting of Michelangelo, flayed, within the sistine chapel frescos? I would
> hardly consider that work "amaturish," but maybe you disagree. Also, this
> is a videogame, not serious literature. Even the best videogame stories
> don't make for "serious literature" for reasons beyond just the quality of
> the work.
We're talking about self-gratification by putting in a reference to
someone else's work. Michaelangelo can paint himself all that he wants,
but he would have been seen as a hack if he simply painted someone
else's masterpiece. Same thing if Beethoven had casually inserted a few
bars of Mozart's work into his own stuff.
As for the "it's only a videogame" argument, it depends on how seriously
the authors of the story take themselves, and want their audiences to
take them. Most RPG authors are dead serious about their stories,
though, and they know that their audiences are, too.
And I will completely disagree if you're saying that videogames have any
inherent limitations as far as the capability for serious literature
goes, but that's a different debate entirely.
> > Biblical and mythological references are a bit different from
> > referencing something more current. I'm not certain if it's just because
> > it's a more accepted practice (in the realms of Science Fiction and
> > Fantasy, anyway) or if it's just because you're using material that
> > everyone else uses (ie. it's considered a common pool of resources), or
> > if it's because you are referencing something without a distinct author.
>
> Consider the Redrum example. Stephen King is a very well known author. Does
> calling that boss "Redrum" sound like some attempt to leech off success or
> plagarize?
Yes, it does. Even if it's only a very small amount; even if it's only
the name of a boss, it still does.
> and they do for different reasons than the
> > Soylent Green and Star Wars references. It's apples and oranges, really.
>
> Yeah, and I've presented a reason why I think so. Very few videogame players
> have doctorates in Theology. Further, biblical references don't really get
> the free pass you insinuate they do. I recall the first time I read "The
> Grapes of Wrath" back in high school, myself, as well as many of my
> classmates, found the big Jesus reference at the end very, very cheesy. If
> my theory holds any water, it would explain why pretty easily. Cain and Abel
> references I also personally find very cheesy, but maybe that's just me.
I think fantasy and sci-fi have a high expectation for mythological
references, even if not necessarily biblical references. It's not a
phenomenon I really understand, though.
Do you also find yourself annoyed at mythological references in RPGs, or
just biblical ones? One of the things Xenogears does is it elevates the
status of the bible to mythology, and I imagine this doesn't work for
everyone. It didn't bug me so much because I read into it the connection
between Deus starting life on the new planet and the database that came
from an Earth ship, but I assumed a fair bit that wasn't explicit within
the game.
Balthasar
> For the record, I intend for this to be my second-to-last response to
> this topic... it's just consuming too much time and effort, and we
> aren't really covering any new material at this point.
Fine by me. Getting a bit tired myself. I think this argument has
progressed, in that I think you can say we have agreed that for it not to be
plagarism, it would have to do (or I would say, at least /not/ do) something
to indicate the names/material/whatever isn't theirs.
Obviously I'm going to disagree with this, but it's better explained by
something said later.
> > > I haven't sidestepped it; I've already provided you with your answer,
> > > and it hasn't changed. Parody is a seperate genre unto itself, with
its
> > > own rules. By definition a parody makes reference to other works, and
> > > you won't gain anything by trying to compare it with other genres.
> >
> > Okay, I'll try to clarify further. From what I know about parody, the
/only/
> > reason it is acceptable is because it /creates/ new material out of the
old.
> > There is no other special law or rule or anything that it works under
that
> > other forms of fiction don't. My argument then is that, just because
it's
> > not called parody does not mean it could not use old ideas, and combine
them
> > in a new and original idea. I would also argue that it is in fact done
in
> > just about every artistic genre, frequently.
>
> For hopefully the last time: I'm not talking about just reusing and
> recombining other ideas, I'm talking about making direct references.
> This is what Xenogears does with Carbonite, Soylent, Redrum, etc. that's
> different from other, similar stories.
But you have also thrown around such concepts as originality, and though you
claim you are not talking about ideas and how they have been used, you have
touched on it several times in several of your comments. So if you wish to
only discuss that, only discuss /that/.
> > > Maybe it runs off of lemon juice instead of unleaded gas, the flux
> > > capacitor is a huge mounted laser that fires at 88 mph to open a time
> > > portal, and it has bitching flame decals. The point is that the
> > > reference is there, regardless of how large or how small.
> >
> > My point was specific to the example you created, which stated itself
> > explicitly. So adding or changing things now is besides the point (which
was
> > that your example is not at all /exactly/ related to the Soylent
system).
> > Maybe you did not understand what I meant when I said it is not exactly
> > related. I mean /exactly/--that is, it is not a very good analogy.
Saying
> > they are a direct parallel implies the idea is the same in both works.
>
> I'm not adding or changing anything; I'm just extending the BTTF example
> as you extended the Soylent example.
I never extended it. I explained how Soylent Systems is and isn't related to
Soylent Green, in much the same way you explained how the Delorean from your
fictional movie is exactly the same (in your original example) as the real
Delorean.
The parallel is exact: My imaginary
> story relates to BTTF through the use of a direct reference (no matter
> how similar or different the rest of the story may be) the same way
> Xenogears relates to Soylent Green through the use of a direct reference
> (no matter how similar or different the rest of the story may be).
I'm not talking about the rest of the story. Part of the problem with your
analogy is that Soylent Green refers (in actuality, not in some construing
of one's perception) to an object, called "Soylent Green," which is a
specific thing. Soylent Systems refers to a system--a process which
encompasses the things I spoke of earlier. It is much more the name of an
idea than it is the name of a thing you can hold (not to say you can't
actually touch it--but explaining what the Soylent System is requires
telling what it does, unlike Soylent Green).
> > > > If it so much as IS a
> > > > > DeLorean, the reference is obvious, the same way as with Soylent
> > Systems.
> > > >
> > > > No.
> > >
> > > Yes it is. DeLorean time-travelling car implies BTTF, the same way
> > > Soylent Systems implies Soylent Green. The reference is simply
obvious.
> >
> > I was actually saying no to the whole thing, not that portion you left
> > unsnipped; however, Delorean implies one thing--Delorean. It was within
the
> > BTTF movie, but it doesn't imply anything within that movie but the car.
>
> This is a mistake: Delorean (a time-travelling one, anyway) implies
> BTTF, not the car. That's what a reference does: it triggers a
> connection to the source of the reference.
In the case of the Delorean though, I would argue it only triggers BTTF
thinking indirectly, because so much of the movie was the car. It wasn't
just the name of some object in the movie, like the name of a character's
dog. It's name can easily (and does) exist outside of the movie, so saying
Delorian would make one think "time traveling car" before they even think of
it's source. A reference doesn't have to trigger a connection to the source
(primarily), and in a case like this, I don't think it does. Take a name
like Jerry Ryan, for instance. If you're familiar with Star Trek Voyager,
then saying that name should make you think Seven of Nine before it makes
you think Star Trek.
> > Likewise, if you are familiar with Soylent Green, Soylent Systems imples
> > "food from people."
>
> No, it implies Soylent Green. "Food from people" is then derived off of
> that.
I think you have the loop in the wrong order. Soylent Green, in fact, would
come first, as nothing would be triggered if you weren't familiar with it.
Seeing Soylent Systems would then trigger the meaning connected to the word
"Soylent," which is "food from people." Thinking Soylent Green again before
going right to it's meaning when it's already active (unconsciously) is a
needless step. At least, that's the way I see it.
Never thought my cognition class would ever show any relevancy. Go figure.
> > That is most likely the first thing you would think, and
> > really, that's the only thing it is even related to. Not only that, but
> > adding the word systems, I would think, implies something extra
> > after-the-fact--that (besides not being "food" per se) it has something
to
> > do with a process, possibly relating to the connection in the word
> > "Soylent." The fact that "Soylent Systems" imples anything about Soylent
> > Green has already been established, however, so I fail to see the point
of
> > your comment, considering your example between two movies with two
deloreans
> > was not just implied, but explicit.
>
> The point is that you seem to continually deny that using the word
> Soylent forces an association to the movie/book Soylent Green.
How did I deny it? What does homage mean, exactly? How can something be a
homage if (assuming you pick up on the homage) it doesn't create some sort
of association in the reader's mind?
My point
> is that it absolutely does, no matter how you slice it, the same way a
> time-travelling Delorean will always imply BTTF, even if everything else
> is different. It's that association that's important; the ideas behind
> it are of debatable origin.
My point is your association is not the same as the one in Xenogears, and
mental associations are not all one in the same. The two imply different
things, of different levels.
> > > I never said it has to be within our own exact culture. It can be any
> > > pop-culture.
> > And yes, making a direct reference to something that isn't
> > > supposed to exist in that world is a big no-no, as it can easily
shatter
> > > the suspension-of-disbelief barrier.
> >
> > My comment there actually goes more in line with my obscure reference
> > comment--that is, if you don't know what it's talking about, it isn't
going
> > to harm anything. Like, if one of the characters of some fantasy novel
is
> > named after the novelist's mother.
>
> I shouldn't have to tell you that referencing the novelist's mother is
> not the same thing as referencing another literary work.
Okay, the mother of a character in a Hemingway novel, then. The Hemingway
character was the fictional novelist's favorite character, so he named his
favorite character from his own book after her.
> > My point was that in most cases of homage making, you can't assign
proper
> > credit like a bibliography, and in fact don't need to.
>
> I don't believe it's something that should be done at all in serious
> fiction. But in the case of a game like Xenogears, they had a couple of
> options they could have exercised, that they didn't:
>
> - Bury it, make it hidden, a secret, etc. instead of just something you
> would inevitably encounter in the course of the game
> - Make it an extremely subtle reference
Here I bring up Japan, again. You can't judge such things from the
perspective of this culture (how obscure it was).
> I still don't think either of these would make it appropriate, but it
> would make it seem a lot more like they were making an inside-reference
> that way.
All of these are just different ways of making it obscure (or seem obscure).
> > Even if they HAD been able
> > > to acknowledge it, it was completely unnecessary and uncalled for.
> >
> > My other point is that it is a rare occasion when homage (and don't
forget
> > what homage is) is actually necessary. It is generally personal.
>
> And inappropriate for a story that takes itself seriously.
Well, I disagree. I think there are plenty of examples of serious fiction
where there are references rife in it. There are a few that are even
semi-autobiographical fiction (though some might argue all authors do this
on some level), but I can't quite recall the author that I explictly
remembered for doing that right now.
> > Regardless, I agree that homages and other non-essential
> > references are best when obscure (if you are in fact hinting towards
that),
> > but I'm not arguing whether the homages WORK or not.
>
> I wouldn't say "best" so much as "not as problematic" when they're left
> obscure by virtue of the fact that there's less of them. By definition,
> though, a non-essential reference is unessential, and therefore should
> not be made. Since homages are non-essential, they generally should not
> be made either.
By virtue of the fact that I think references to things which are not
explicitly created by the author are done all the time, on purpose or not, I
see no problem with them.
> > > > > The Star Trek game I described in the previous message, OTOH,
clearly
> > > > > acknowledged itself as being a game taking place in the Star Trek
> > > > > universe.
> > > >
> > > > Because it used Star Trek ideas, not because it said "this is star
trek
> > > > material."
> > >
> > > No, it acknowledged its source as Star Trek.
> >
> > It literally said in it's manual that this is Star Trek? Because you
said
> > they legally weren't allowed to do that? If so, it doesn't really fit
within
> > what we were talking about, then. Explain.
>
> IIRC, after the threat of litigation "a universe based on Star Trek"
> changed to a statement along the lines of "any similarities etc. are
> purely coincidental", but it was still abundantly clear that this was
> only to avoid litigation, and that the author didn't mean a word of it
> and would acknowledge the source if not for the fact that he'd get sued
> if he did.
Abundantly clear within only the game, or because you were aware of all
these legal issues? From what you've said, it sounds like they did not
acknowledge its source, and in fact denied it for the exact reason you just
outlined.
> > > One of the reasons I didn't want to deal with that was because it
raises
> > > another question: do we know with certainty that it was called
"Soylent"
> > > in the Japanese version?
> >
> > I would prefer to ignore that and stick with what is here. You might
think
> > that this would include ignoring the "japan-first" factor, but I think
it's
> > way too important to ignore.
>
> Well, it's important to realize that Redrum, Carbonite Freezing and
> Soylent Systems may all be figments of the translators, which negates
> their significance to the Japanese entirely.
Actually, it would negate your argument, and strengthen what I am saying
(regarding the fact that this is a japanese game brought over to the US),
because it would mean that it's quite possible that the writers did not
engage in any such creative or popularity theft, percieved or in actuality.
I don't see it as a point worth getting into because I see it as less likely
that this was the case than the idea that the Japanese people aren't
familiar with an american sci-fi movie from the 70's.
> > > Regardless, it doesn't matter if the reference is obscure, if you're
> > > copying someone else's material, you're copying someone else's
material.
> >
> > Except they're not. You wonder how I got confused earlier about what we
were
> > arguing about when you jump again from talking about the legitimacy of a
> > possible perception of Xenogears trying to ride the coattails of the
> > popularity of Soylent Green and Star Wars, to whether the ideas
themselves
> > were nabbed or homages. And why I stressed a need to separate what you
were
> > talking about in your examples. If you want to talk about whether they
stole
> > their ideas or not, fine. But don't switch back and forth.
>
> Material != Ideas.
That's an incredibly vague word to use in the context of this discussion. I
would hope you could see how that word might be interpreted by me to mean
"creative" material.
> Soylent is someone else's material. Redrum is someone else's material.
> Carbonite Freezing is someone else's material.
Why not just say word or name? Much clearer that way, if you aren't talking
about ideas.
> > > If anything, people will be more annoyed if you're caught trying to
pull
> > > the wool over their eyes by copying something you hope they won't know
> > > about, because it shows your intentions were to plagiarize.
> >
> > Not if there was no plagarism.
>
> There WAS plagiarism. Plagiarism isn't restricted to the underlying
> ideas.
No, it isn't. But plagarism is restricted to whether such an act occured or
not (obviously). And, as I have contended, there was no plagarism (unless
you can prove that they took the above meantioned words as their own).
> > Godspell, for
> > > example, has Jesus in a Superman shirt, but the logo is greatly
deformed
> > > so there's no chance of litigation. But you can't deny the obvious
> > > reference to Superman. For better or for worse, it's still there.
> >
> > Sure, but is he Superman? Is he supposed to be Superman? Is something
being
> > indicated through the reference other than "I am Superman?"
>
> You'd have to ask the authors (I am under the extreme suspiscion that
> they were high when they wrote it)
I'm asking you because your perception of this is what matters in this
particular case, not what they intended.
but the point is (in response to what
> you said, that changing the logo could change the message) that you are
> making an association with Superman, regardless of what additional or
> altered messages you send.
Well, I don't think my stance on whether they were making an association or
not needs to be repeated. Or the fact that I'm not arguing whether it is
occuring or not.
> > > I haven't flipped at all. Less being better was provisional on the
> > > claiming of originality.
> >
> > Who was talking about claiming homages "original?"
>
> I was.
Just my point. Read above.
When you have an original story, it is expected that the source
> of all of the content is (more or less) the author of it. When you make
> a reference to another person's work without acknowledging that it isn't
> your material, it violates that trust between the author and audience.
Unless you don't take any steps to claim the material as your own. This,
like the very first thing I commented on, will be better explained later.
> > If someone wants to write a story entirely
> > > based on someone else's story they can, so long as they don't claim
the
> > > source material as their own. It's like all of the Star Wars novels
> > > written by independent authors: none of them take claim for the
> > > underlying source of their material, which is why they all say "Star
> > > Wars" on the cover.
> >
> > How does Xenogears claim the word "Soylent" or the term "Carbon
Freezing" as
> > their own?
>
> By doing nothing to mention that it's not their own. There are tons of
> clever names or ideas I could take from other stories and put in my own,
> but I don't do it because they're not mine.
>
> If I was playing Xenogears without ever having seen Star Wars or heard
> of Soylent Green, I would think that they came up with the terms Carbon
> Freezing and Soylent. And that would be wrong.
Remember that.
> > > An example of a required reference would be the Nerd Trio from Buffy
the
> > > Vampire Slayer. As characters, they would not be particularly
> > > believeable if they didn't make regular references to nerd
pop-culture.
> > > In this case, however, once again the source is acknowledged (even if
> > > that source is just "pop-culture") and the author is not claiming it
as
> > > their own material.
> >
> > How is the source acknowledged, exactly?
>
> Because the characters make it evident that they are quipping from
> pop-culture. There is no such obviousness in Xenogears.
How do they make it obvious they are quipping from something that exists
outside of the story? Imagine you are Japanese and know very little about
American culture or American things. How do you know the things they refer
to are real things and not things the author made up (without research, of
course)?
Also, since you watch this show, I think I have a pretty good example of why
your idea about this falls apart. There was an episode not too long ago
where all these people who had been previously dead had significant
interactions with a few of the main characters (vamp and Buffy, Tara and
Willow, Dawn and her deceased mother)--anyway, at one point, the vampire
said "Spike...made me into a vampire" or something along those lines, and
Buffy corrects him by saying "Siring." Is that a term created by the writer
of that script, or is it something that was created by someone else?
Considering I'm not really sure which is the case, by your logic, I should
assume they came up with it, since they did nothing to show that it is
someone else's "material." Does that mean, if this word was first used by
someone like, say, Bram Stoker, they plagarized?
> > > I would personally think "rip-off", because they made a direct
reference
> > > to it, didn't acknowledge where it came from,
> >
> > Not possible. Not possible in most cases of homage, in my opinion.
>
> Depends on the type of story, but you're right that most sci-fi and
> fantasy are unable to do so.
Then your expectations on those genres might be a bit unreasonable in this
respect, /if/ you can agree references are common and accepted in all forms
of literature. I think this argument has progressed, in that I think you can
say we have agreed that for it not to be plagarism, it would have to do (or
I would say, at least /not/ do) something to indicate the
names/material/whatever isn't theirs.
> > and it seems as though
> > > they were hoping that I wouldn't pick up on it.
> >
> > So why write the Perfect Works book? From what I have read about it,
it's
> > basically the Xenogears bible--supposed to explain everything about the
> > game, chronicles everything, places each part of the originally
concieved
> > story to actual dates. That's not the creators trying to hide what'd
going
> > on. It was also only released in Japan.
>
> We don't know whether or not Perfect Works documents the pop-culture
> references.
It doesn't have to, at least in the way you are indicating they should. I
brought it up because of your claim that the writers were "hoping" you
didn't pick up on the reference (within the example I outlined). If they lay
out all their information about the game, it would go against any intent to
hide what their influences might have been. I doubt the book does lay out
what may have influence each specific term in the game, but rather explained
how those terms were used in the game. But these terms are layed out right
there, available to be seen if you missed it while playing.
We don't even know if the pop-culture references were made
> in the Japanese version.
It doesn't matter in this case (unless Working Designs touched the
translation--then you would know there could definately be a problem there).
It's much more unlikely then likely that translations would take such
creative liberties in this case.
> Although I have no evidence to support or deny it, my guess is that the
> book mostly lists biblical and mythological references and doesn't
> mention The Shining, Star Wars or Soylent Green.
It probably doesn't meantion the influences, no.
> > > No; their competence and integrity is reflected and measured by their
> > > works.
> >
> > You don't see the problem with that logic? You said originality is
measured
> > by the integrity of the writer--but then you say the integrity is
reflected
> > in their work--which is where you would judge originality, right (since
you
> > aren't looking at anything else)? So what do you use as a judge of this
> > intergrity? What you see as being original, and what you see as not
being
> > original? I hope this circular logic is clear, here.
>
> Originality isn't measured by integrity of the writer,
Are you correcting yourself or claiming that's not what you said? Well, you
said "A lot of what is 'original' is reflected in the competence and
integrity of the writer," in response to the question "What is original?"
(paraphrased). Either you were answering my question, or you were
sidestepping it.
although the
> writer's confidence in their own originality can be measured by it.
> These terms aren't rigidly-defined enough to apply simple propositional
> logic to, though.
The writer's confidence (in their originalty) can be measured by their
integrity? And originality is reflected in their integrity? So what is their
integrity determined by? Not originality, I hope. Basically, if I wanted to
condense what you've said to me in response to my question, it would read
"Originality is dertermined by what I deem original." Clearly a problem.
> > > If the writer was confident that their work was original and stood on
> > > its own, even with a passing similarity to Soylent Green in that one
> > > scene, they would not have found it necessary to make the reference.
> >
> > If all writers thought like you, maybe. Would you explain Xenogears'
> > reference to "The Shinning" this way? In case you don't know what I'm
> > talking about, there's a boss you fight in the sewers when you meet Rico
(in
> > Kislev), named "Redrum."
>
> Yeah, I'd forgotten about the Redrum thing until you mentioned it here.
> It parallels the other references we've been discussing, though.
It depends on what you're talking about. If you're talking about the
contention that Soylent Systems does not reference Soylent Green (which was
never a contention on my part), then it's similar, because I would think it
was meant to be a reference to The Shinning. If you're talking about using
that reference to gain some sort of popularity or recognizability, then I'd
say no. You didn't even remember the reference. And you claim you aren't
talking about ideas, so that doesn't need to be addressed.
> They could have named the boss anything. They could have simply named it
> Murder, if they wanted.
That would defeat the purpose, wouldn't it? Clearly they went more out of
their way to name it Redrum then they did calling it something else,
wouldn't you say?
If they were REALLY keen on using Redrum,
Which I think they clearly were.
they
> could have at least reversed the letters of other enemies or bosses to
> make it look like it wasn't such a direct reference.
Why would they want to hide the fact that they're making a reference? (It's
a rhetorical question) All the things you bring up here are clear examples
of how your interpretations of their thoughts are not really in line with
what they might have actually been thinking.
Leaving the
> reference in plain sight the way they did brought nothing to the story
> and just needlessly incremented their "rip-off" counter.
Why does leaving it in plain sight change the fact that they made a
reference to The Shinning?
> > > Self-gratification by putting a reference in to something they >
> > appreciated or admired may be tempting, but it is a very amateurish
> > > thing to do, and it brings nothing to the story. It has no place in
> > > serious literature.
> >
> > You don't think authors or people in other forms of art do things which
are
> > self-gratifying and not important to the work itself? What about the
famous
> > panting of Michelangelo, flayed, within the sistine chapel frescos? I
would
> > hardly consider that work "amaturish," but maybe you disagree. Also,
this
> > is a videogame, not serious literature. Even the best videogame stories
> > don't make for "serious literature" for reasons beyond just the quality
of
> > the work.
>
> We're talking about self-gratification by putting in a reference to
> someone else's work.
I'm talking about intellectual self-gratification. I think the example works
regardless of whether the reference is to someone else's work or not.
Michelangelo exists separate from his fresco, and is a popular figure in
art. If you aren't talking about the taking of ideas, then the fact that
Michelangelo the /face/ is not someone else's artistic work is irrelevant.
Putting himself in this work, by your logic, shows an attempt to make it
more popular because he himself is popular.
Michaelangelo can paint himself all that he wants,
> but he would have been seen as a hack if he simply painted someone
> else's masterpiece.
Because he'd be stealing someone else's creative ideas. This is what I refer
to as your "flipping" in this argument.
Same thing if Beethoven had casually inserted a few
> bars of Mozart's work into his own stuff.
Well, aside from the fact that neither were alive for very long at the same
time, if he had done that, it could be interpreted in several different
ways, depending on how it's done. It's not definately plagarism just because
he took a few lines of Motzart-composed music.
> As for the "it's only a videogame" argument,
That wasn't my argument.
it depends on how seriously
> the authors of the story take themselves, and want their audiences to
> take them. Most RPG authors are dead serious about their stories,
> though, and they know that their audiences are, too.
>
> And I will completely disagree if you're saying that videogames have any
> inherent limitations as far as the capability for serious literature
> goes, but that's a different debate entirely.
That, however, was part of my contention. If videogame stories can be
considered serious litterature, it should be easily translatable from one
medium to the other. But it's not--how does one explain sidequests? Walking
into other people's houses? Traveling by foot for approximately half the
book before comming across a more reasonable means of transportation? You
can't simply pretend they aren't present within a given story--it's there as
part of the story.
> > > Biblical and mythological references are a bit different from
> > > referencing something more current. I'm not certain if it's just
because
> > > it's a more accepted practice (in the realms of Science Fiction and
> > > Fantasy, anyway) or if it's just because you're using material that
> > > everyone else uses (ie. it's considered a common pool of resources),
or
> > > if it's because you are referencing something without a distinct
author.
> >
> > Consider the Redrum example. Stephen King is a very well known author.
Does
> > calling that boss "Redrum" sound like some attempt to leech off success
or
> > plagarize?
>
> Yes, it does. Even if it's only a very small amount; even if it's only
> the name of a boss, it still does.
You are focusing on the wrong parts of my argument. I'm not asking whether
is "sorta" seems like it is trying to plagarize or if it is "really" trying
to plagarize. Plagarize is plagarize, as I think you incinuated earlier. But
the answer to this question is really answered from the nerd discussion
above.
> > and they do for different reasons than the
> > > Soylent Green and Star Wars references. It's apples and oranges,
really.
> >
> > Yeah, and I've presented a reason why I think so. Very few videogame
players
> > have doctorates in Theology. Further, biblical references don't really
get
> > the free pass you insinuate they do. I recall the first time I read "The
> > Grapes of Wrath" back in high school, myself, as well as many of my
> > classmates, found the big Jesus reference at the end very, very cheesy.
If
> > my theory holds any water, it would explain why pretty easily. Cain and
Abel
> > references I also personally find very cheesy, but maybe that's just me.
>
> I think fantasy and sci-fi have a high expectation for mythological
> references, even if not necessarily biblical references. It's not a
> phenomenon I really understand, though.
>
> Do you also find yourself annoyed at mythological references in RPGs, or
> just biblical ones?
It's very variable, and the only thing I can point to it being dependent on
is one thing--whether my reason for disliking it is being "trite." Cain and
Able references, at least for me, have become increadibly trite. And some JC
references, specifically any sort of crucifiction reference (or even
stigmata references, though this is a bit more recent). That factor can be
dulled by using the symbolism in some significantly new way, but it still
bugs me, just a little.
One of the things Xenogears does is it elevates the
> status of the bible to mythology, and I imagine this doesn't work for
> everyone. It didn't bug me so much because I read into it the connection
> between Deus starting life on the new planet and the database that came
> from an Earth ship, but I assumed a fair bit that wasn't explicit within
> the game.
Funny you say "elevate" when talking about the bible being viewed as
mythological material. I thought it was interesting that they did do that
though, and somewhat symbolic of some of the game's more critical views
towards certain religious establishments. I actually didn't assume that
connection at first, though interestingly, when that woman came out of the
ship, one of the first things I remember thinking was "mother earth." She
seemed like some sort of mother, but I never thought she actually /was/ one
until much later.
Dan Posluns
"Balthasar" <kdj...@nyu.edu> wrote:
> "Dan Posluns" <d...@removeallexceptdanposluns.com> wrote in message
> news:dan-0E2B83.1...@news.cogeco.ca...
> > For the record, I intend for this to be my second-to-last response to
> > this topic... it's just consuming too much time and effort, and we
> > aren't really covering any new material at this point.
>
> Fine by me. Getting a bit tired myself. I think this argument has
> progressed, in that I think you can say we have agreed that for it not to be
> plagarism, it would have to do (or I would say, at least /not/ do) something
> to indicate the names/material/whatever isn't theirs.
Yes, we've managed to reach some common ground there.
My attention span wanes, however; as such when faced with the extreme
chore of making a coherent response I've wimped out and chosen only to
remark on a few newer comments that may be of interest, since I won't be
saying anything new in the remainder of it that we haven't already
hashed over a dozen times before. Don't take it as me ignoring your
other points; take it as me giving in to fatigue.
> The parallel is exact: My imaginary
> > story relates to BTTF through the use of a direct reference (no matter
> > how similar or different the rest of the story may be) the same way
> > Xenogears relates to Soylent Green through the use of a direct reference
> > (no matter how similar or different the rest of the story may be).
>
> I'm not talking about the rest of the story. Part of the problem with your
> analogy is that Soylent Green refers (in actuality, not in some construing
> of one's perception) to an object, called "Soylent Green," which is a
> specific thing. Soylent Systems refers to a system--a process which
> encompasses the things I spoke of earlier. It is much more the name of an
> idea than it is the name of a thing you can hold (not to say you can't
> actually touch it--but explaining what the Soylent System is requires
> telling what it does, unlike Soylent Green).
I would argue that this is why the name is so important, because it is
the literal identifier of the idea.
> > This is a mistake: Delorean (a time-travelling one, anyway) implies
> > BTTF, not the car. That's what a reference does: it triggers a
> > connection to the source of the reference.
>
> In the case of the Delorean though, I would argue it only triggers BTTF
> thinking indirectly, because so much of the movie was the car. It wasn't
> just the name of some object in the movie, like the name of a character's
> dog. It's name can easily (and does) exist outside of the movie, so saying
> Delorian would make one think "time traveling car" before they even think of
> it's source. A reference doesn't have to trigger a connection to the source
> (primarily), and in a case like this, I don't think it does. Take a name
> like Jerry Ryan, for instance. If you're familiar with Star Trek Voyager,
> then saying that name should make you think Seven of Nine before it makes
> you think Star Trek.
That's precisely the reason I conveniently snuck "time-travelling" into
the parentheses. ;)
Although in all fairness, I don't think I've ever been in a crowd of my
friends where you could say "Delorean" to without someone shouting
something like: "Well, then Future-Boy, who's president of the United
States in 1985?" Of course, those are just my crazy friends and don't
constitute an appropriate sample space of North American culture.
> > No, it implies Soylent Green. "Food from people" is then derived off of
> > that.
>
> I think you have the loop in the wrong order. Soylent Green, in fact, would
> come first, as nothing would be triggered if you weren't familiar with it.
> Seeing Soylent Systems would then trigger the meaning connected to the word
> "Soylent," which is "food from people." Thinking Soylent Green again before
> going right to it's meaning when it's already active (unconsciously) is a
> needless step. At least, that's the way I see it.
This is an interesting chain, and different from the one I would expect.
I would see it as follows:
Soylent Systems -> triggers "Soylent"
Soylent -> triggers "Soylent Green"
Soylent Green -> triggers food from people
In your version, there is a presumed attachment between the word Soylent
and the concept of food from people that exists independent of the
title, Soylent Green. This seems highly unlikely to me, as it requires
sufficient "branding" of the term Soylent that it becomes totally
independent of the work Soylent Green.
> Never thought my cognition class would ever show any relevancy. Go figure.
Only on the Internet, I'm sure. ^_^
> > I shouldn't have to tell you that referencing the novelist's mother is
> > not the same thing as referencing another literary work.
>
> Okay, the mother of a character in a Hemingway novel, then. The Hemingway
> character was the fictional novelist's favorite character, so he named his
> favorite character from his own book after her.
I guess it would depend on how original the mother's name was... even
the more "obscure" names used by most fiction writers are rarely
original. I don't know how Hemingway was in this regard, but since he
mostly wrote realism I don't imagine he'd come up with too many of his
own names.
Even uncommon names are usually easier to "get away" with reusing, which
is part of the reason that referencing actual original names such as
Redrum and Soylent really stands out.
> > > My point was that in most cases of homage making, you can't assign
> proper
> > > credit like a bibliography, and in fact don't need to.
> >
> > I don't believe it's something that should be done at all in serious
> > fiction. But in the case of a game like Xenogears, they had a couple of
> > options they could have exercised, that they didn't:
> >
> > - Bury it, make it hidden, a secret, etc. instead of just something you
> > would inevitably encounter in the course of the game
> > - Make it an extremely subtle reference
>
> Here I bring up Japan, again. You can't judge such things from the
> perspective of this culture (how obscure it was).
Obscurity isn't the same as subtlety, though, nor is it the same as
burying it.
> > And inappropriate for a story that takes itself seriously.
>
> Well, I disagree. I think there are plenty of examples of serious fiction
> where there are references rife in it. There are a few that are even
> semi-autobiographical fiction (though some might argue all authors do this
> on some level), but I can't quite recall the author that I explictly
> remembered for doing that right now.
The only references in any serious fiction I know of to other works are
references to the pop-culture that the story is set in, where it is
understood that the writer didn't come up with the material.
> > I wouldn't say "best" so much as "not as problematic" when they're left
> > obscure by virtue of the fact that there's less of them. By definition,
> > though, a non-essential reference is unessential, and therefore should
> > not be made. Since homages are non-essential, they generally should not
> > be made either.
>
> By virtue of the fact that I think references to things which are not
> explicitly created by the author are done all the time, on purpose or not, I
> see no problem with them.
I don't know where you get that from. Since you brought him up,
Hemingway never referenced any other contemporary writers in his
fiction, to my knowledge. Neither do most authors.
> > Well, it's important to realize that Redrum, Carbonite Freezing and
> > Soylent Systems may all be figments of the translators, which negates
> > their significance to the Japanese entirely.
>
> Actually, it would negate your argument, and strengthen what I am saying
> (regarding the fact that this is a japanese game brought over to the US),
> because it would mean that it's quite possible that the writers did not
> engage in any such creative or popularity theft, percieved or in actuality.
> I don't see it as a point worth getting into because I see it as less likely
> that this was the case than the idea that the Japanese people aren't
> familiar with an american sci-fi movie from the 70's.
That opens up a whole different debate I won't be getting into (again,
anyway) about the role of the translator as a creator. To make a long
story short, I would argue it's still bad writing, it's just the
translator's fault, not the original author.
> When you have an original story, it is expected that the source
> > of all of the content is (more or less) the author of it. When you make
> > a reference to another person's work without acknowledging that it isn't
> > your material, it violates that trust between the author and audience.
>
> Unless you don't take any steps to claim the material as your own. This,
> like the very first thing I commented on, will be better explained later.
Putting your name on the story claims the story as your own. So unless
there's something, somewhere in the story saying that part isn't your
own, people who don't know any better will assume it is.
> > Because the characters make it evident that they are quipping from
> > pop-culture. There is no such obviousness in Xenogears.
>
> How do they make it obvious they are quipping from something that exists
> outside of the story? Imagine you are Japanese and know very little about
> American culture or American things. How do you know the things they refer
> to are real things and not things the author made up (without research, of
> course)?
>
> Also, since you watch this show, I think I have a pretty good example of why
> your idea about this falls apart. There was an episode not too long ago
> where all these people who had been previously dead had significant
> interactions with a few of the main characters (vamp and Buffy, Tara and
> Willow, Dawn and her deceased mother)--anyway, at one point, the vampire
> said "Spike...made me into a vampire" or something along those lines, and
> Buffy corrects him by saying "Siring." Is that a term created by the writer
> of that script, or is it something that was created by someone else?
> Considering I'm not really sure which is the case, by your logic, I should
> assume they came up with it, since they did nothing to show that it is
> someone else's "material." Does that mean, if this word was first used by
> someone like, say, Bram Stoker, they plagarized?
It might be, but this is a grey area since vampire lore and terminology
have become a type of mythology.
As an example, however, if Bram Stoker invented the use of the term
"sire" in that context, as you suggest, then it would indeed be
inappropriate for them to use it callously without some reference to
where the term came from. I don't know whether or not this is the case,
though.
> > We don't know whether or not Perfect Works documents the pop-culture
> > references.
>
> It doesn't have to, at least in the way you are indicating they should. I
> brought it up because of your claim that the writers were "hoping" you
> didn't pick up on the reference (within the example I outlined). If they lay
> out all their information about the game, it would go against any intent to
> hide what their influences might have been. I doubt the book does lay out
> what may have influence each specific term in the game, but rather explained
> how those terms were used in the game. But these terms are layed out right
> there, available to be seen if you missed it while playing.
Again, though, there's a very different popular perception when it comes
to referencing mythology and (generally) the bible as opposed to other
contemporary works. Perfect Works makes a good impression to most people
because it shows how much "research" the authors did.
Showing the same "research" into current, copyrighted materials,
however, I imagine would have elicited a very different response.
> We don't even know if the pop-culture references were made
> > in the Japanese version.
>
> It doesn't matter in this case (unless Working Designs touched the
> translation--then you would know there could definately be a problem there).
> It's much more unlikely then likely that translations would take such
> creative liberties in this case.
I'd be inclined to call them anti-creative liberties, actually... and I
wouldn't put it past a lot of the bored and untalented translators we
get. (Take the "Scotty, beam us up!" example from FF4, even if it was a
fan-translation.)
> > > > No; their competence and integrity is reflected and measured by their
> > > > works.
> > >
> > > You don't see the problem with that logic? You said originality is
> measured
> > > by the integrity of the writer--but then you say the integrity is
> reflected
> > > in their work--which is where you would judge originality, right (since
> you
> > > aren't looking at anything else)? So what do you use as a judge of this
> > > intergrity? What you see as being original, and what you see as not
> being
> > > original? I hope this circular logic is clear, here.
> >
> > Originality isn't measured by integrity of the writer,
>
> Are you correcting yourself or claiming that's not what you said? Well, you
> said "A lot of what is 'original' is reflected in the competence and
> integrity of the writer," in response to the question "What is original?"
> (paraphrased). Either you were answering my question, or you were
> sidestepping it.
I suppose I meant more reflected by their competence than their
integrity. Although their integrity does also reflect it, it's only in a
minor way and not something that can easily be measured.
> although the
> > writer's confidence in their own originality can be measured by it.
> > These terms aren't rigidly-defined enough to apply simple propositional
> > logic to, though.
>
> The writer's confidence (in their originalty) can be measured by their
> integrity? And originality is reflected in their integrity? So what is their
> integrity determined by? Not originality, I hope. Basically, if I wanted to
> condense what you've said to me in response to my question, it would read
> "Originality is dertermined by what I deem original." Clearly a problem.
Sometimes it's very hard or impossible to determine a writer's
integrity. Heck, 400 years later it now seems as if Shakespeare got a
lot of his stuff from all over the place. So it's not the most useful
criteria, I suppose.
> Why would they want to hide the fact that they're making a reference? (It's
> a rhetorical question) All the things you bring up here are clear examples
> of how your interpretations of their thoughts are not really in line with
> what they might have actually been thinking.
Oh, I'm sure they were thinking different things from me. They probably
thought it would be cool to have a reference to The Shining in the game,
and that Redrum would be a cool name for a boss.
I'm just saying that it's a very unoriginal and amateurish way of
thinking. They should be setting their sights higher if they want to
evoke fear than merely making people think of The Shining. Redrum was a
cop-out, as was Soylent and Carbonite.
> Leaving the
> > reference in plain sight the way they did brought nothing to the story
> > and just needlessly incremented their "rip-off" counter.
>
> Why does leaving it in plain sight change the fact that they made a
> reference to The Shinning?
It doesn't, but it also takes away the excuse of it being just an
in-joke or big secret. (Which wouldn't justify it, but would at least be
a lesser evil.)
> Michaelangelo can paint himself all that he wants,
> > but he would have been seen as a hack if he simply painted someone
> > else's masterpiece.
>
> Because he'd be stealing someone else's creative ideas. This is what I refer
> to as your "flipping" in this argument.
What if (and I realize this is starting to get very hypothetical) he
painted a picture of people looking at another artist's painting? Now
the other artist's work is no longer the subject of the painting (so
he's not stealing the ideas), but rather it's just an object being
referred to.
I contend that it would be construed as his own work, most likely, but
people would probably look down on the unoriginality of him putting the
reference to another artist's painting in his own, and it would probably
not be as revered as his entirely original works.
> Same thing if Beethoven had casually inserted a few
> > bars of Mozart's work into his own stuff.
>
> Well, aside from the fact that neither were alive for very long at the same
> time, if he had done that, it could be interpreted in several different
> ways, depending on how it's done. It's not definately plagarism just because
> he took a few lines of Motzart-composed music.
Not to turn it into an issue of law (because it's clearly more than
that), but legally anything more than four bars constitutes copyright
infringement (in North America, anyway).
Do you get the commercial where you are for "People's Jewellers" with
almost exactly the same music as the DeBoer's diamond commercials? I'm
actually friends with the guy who composed the DeBoer's commercial
music, and if you ask him I guarantee you he'll say that despite the
differences of the People's Jewellers adaptation, he feels he's been
plagiarized.
> > And I will completely disagree if you're saying that videogames have any
> > inherent limitations as far as the capability for serious literature
> > goes, but that's a different debate entirely.
>
> That, however, was part of my contention. If videogame stories can be
> considered serious litterature, it should be easily translatable from one
> medium to the other. But it's not--how does one explain sidequests? Walking
> into other people's houses? Traveling by foot for approximately half the
> book before comming across a more reasonable means of transportation? You
> can't simply pretend they aren't present within a given story--it's there as
> part of the story.
I'm not about to get into this, but if you're interested there's a
fascinating book by Janet H. Murray, who teaches a PhD course in
electronic fiction at MIT. It's called "Hamlet on the Holodeck" and she
talks extensively about the evolution of the narrative and how it is
growing into interactive media.
Balthasar
Since you aren't responding, I'll keep it short.
> > > No, it implies Soylent Green. "Food from people" is then derived off
of
> > > that.
> >
> > I think you have the loop in the wrong order. Soylent Green, in fact,
would
> > come first, as nothing would be triggered if you weren't familiar with
it.
> > Seeing Soylent Systems would then trigger the meaning connected to the
word
> > "Soylent," which is "food from people." Thinking Soylent Green again
before
> > going right to it's meaning when it's already active (unconsciously) is
a
> > needless step. At least, that's the way I see it.
>
> This is an interesting chain, and different from the one I would expect.
> I would see it as follows:
>
> Soylent Systems -> triggers "Soylent"
> Soylent -> triggers "Soylent Green"
> Soylent Green -> triggers food from people
>
> In your version, there is a presumed attachment between the word Soylent
> and the concept of food from people that exists independent of the
> title, Soylent Green. This seems highly unlikely to me, as it requires
> sufficient "branding" of the term Soylent that it becomes totally
> independent of the work Soylent Green.
Yeah, I think the term they use to explain that is "salient," (which I think
is a somewhat common word anyway). It's a shaky theory in it's own right,
and most cognitive psychologists don't seem to really like it, but it seems
to be the best at explaining the most at the moment.
> > Never thought my cognition class would ever show any relevancy. Go
figure.
>
> Only on the Internet, I'm sure. ^_^
Only place I'd be debating this shit, anyway.
> > > And inappropriate for a story that takes itself seriously.
> >
> > Well, I disagree. I think there are plenty of examples of serious
fiction
> > where there are references rife in it. There are a few that are even
> > semi-autobiographical fiction (though some might argue all authors do
this
> > on some level), but I can't quite recall the author that I explictly
> > remembered for doing that right now.
>
> The only references in any serious fiction I know of to other works are
> references to the pop-culture that the story is set in, where it is
> understood that the writer didn't come up with the material.
I wasn't simply speaking of other works of fiction, but anything not
explicity created by the author. Like things, people, events out of the
author's real life (which usually tends to ruffle feathers, but is by no
means illegal).
> > > I wouldn't say "best" so much as "not as problematic" when they're
left
> > > obscure by virtue of the fact that there's less of them. By
definition,
> > > though, a non-essential reference is unessential, and therefore should
> > > not be made. Since homages are non-essential, they generally should
not
> > > be made either.
> >
> > By virtue of the fact that I think references to things which are not
> > explicitly created by the author are done all the time, on purpose or
not, I
> > see no problem with them.
>
> I don't know where you get that from. Since you brought him up,
> Hemingway never referenced any other contemporary writers in his
> fiction, to my knowledge. Neither do most authors.
Contemporary writers? Maybe not. I wasn't really thinking about other
writers.
> > > Well, it's important to realize that Redrum, Carbonite Freezing and
> > > Soylent Systems may all be figments of the translators, which negates
> > > their significance to the Japanese entirely.
> >
> > Actually, it would negate your argument, and strengthen what I am saying
> > (regarding the fact that this is a japanese game brought over to the
US),
> > because it would mean that it's quite possible that the writers did not
> > engage in any such creative or popularity theft, percieved or in
actuality.
> > I don't see it as a point worth getting into because I see it as less
likely
> > that this was the case than the idea that the Japanese people aren't
> > familiar with an american sci-fi movie from the 70's.
>
> That opens up a whole different debate I won't be getting into (again,
> anyway) about the role of the translator as a creator. To make a long
> story short, I would argue it's still bad writing, it's just the
> translator's fault, not the original author.
Certainly bad writing, but I don't care to defend the translator. He fucked
up enough on this game anyway.
> Putting your name on the story claims the story as your own. So unless
> there's something, somewhere in the story saying that part isn't your
> own, people who don't know any better will assume it is.
> > How do they make it obvious they are quipping from something that exists
That was just one example I called upon specifically because I'm in the dark
about the originality of that term. But the question applies to all the pop
culture in it. I don't see any way one would know that the things they say
(faith's "five-by-five," for one) aren't just made up by the author and come
from the culture of the author, past or present. The Faith example I was
actually also in the dark about until a few months ago. There are plenty of
other things, and none of them, original or not, are done in any way to
really let me know it's source.
> > Michaelangelo can paint himself all that he wants,
> > > but he would have been seen as a hack if he simply painted someone
> > > else's masterpiece.
> >
> > Because he'd be stealing someone else's creative ideas. This is what I
refer
> > to as your "flipping" in this argument.
>
> What if (and I realize this is starting to get very hypothetical) he
> painted a picture of people looking at another artist's painting? Now
> the other artist's work is no longer the subject of the painting (so
> he's not stealing the ideas), but rather it's just an object being
> referred to.
Well, I would still say the other artist's work is the subject of the new
painting. It's not just another object in the way you describe it--removing
that painting will effectively change whatever message the painter is trying
to send.
> I contend that it would be construed as his own work, most likely, but
> people would probably look down on the unoriginality of him putting the
> reference to another artist's painting in his own, and it would probably
> not be as revered as his entirely original works.
I'd see it as his own work too, but because the subject of the new painting
is not the same as the painting within the new painting. Because the
painting involves people looking at the other painting, it would seem as
though he's trying to say something about that painting, whether it be
insulting or complementary, which makes it distinctly different from the
original painting's idea. If such a thing were done, and executed well, it
would be a shame if people saw it that way, but what are you going to do?
Argue with them on usenet?
> > Same thing if Beethoven had casually inserted a few
> > > bars of Mozart's work into his own stuff.
> >
> > Well, aside from the fact that neither were alive for very long at the
same
> > time, if he had done that, it could be interpreted in several different
> > ways, depending on how it's done. It's not definately plagarism just
because
> > he took a few lines of Motzart-composed music.
>
> Not to turn it into an issue of law (because it's clearly more than
> that), but legally anything more than four bars constitutes copyright
> infringement (in North America, anyway).
That I've heard before. Totally forgot it until you meantioned it, though.
Rappers got away with murder in the 80's with all the free sampling they
did.
> Do you get the commercial where you are for "People's Jewellers" with
> almost exactly the same music as the DeBoer's diamond commercials?
Yeah, I've heard it and I always get confused with the two commercials if
I'm not paying attention.
I'm
> actually friends with the guy who composed the DeBoer's commercial
> music, and if you ask him I guarantee you he'll say that despite the
> differences of the People's Jewellers adaptation, he feels he's been
> plagiarized.
I'd agree--maybe not legally plagarized, but certainly in spirit.
> > That, however, was part of my contention. If videogame stories can be
> > considered serious litterature, it should be easily translatable from
one
> > medium to the other. But it's not--how does one explain sidequests?
Walking
> > into other people's houses? Traveling by foot for approximately half the
> > book before comming across a more reasonable means of transportation?
You
> > can't simply pretend they aren't present within a given story--it's
there as
> > part of the story.
>
> I'm not about to get into this, but if you're interested there's a
> fascinating book by Janet H. Murray, who teaches a PhD course in
> electronic fiction at MIT. It's called "Hamlet on the Holodeck" and she
> talks extensively about the evolution of the narrative and how it is
> growing into interactive media.
I won't argue that there's no legitimacy to videogame writing (because I
think there is), but I've always held they're written under fundamentally
different rules, like the ones that seem to exist between literature and
movies.
Dan Posluns
"Balthasar" <kdj...@nyu.edu> wrote:
> Certainly bad writing, but I don't care to defend the translator. He fucked
> up enough on this game anyway.
I know I said I was done responding, but I had to raise a glass to this
statement before bowing out.